D2iQ (formerly Mesosphere) still supports the Mesosphere solution, which is designed for operations at a very large scale. It's powered by DC/OS, a production-proven cloud native platform that runs containers and data services on the same infrastructure.
D2iQ rebranded to reflect their change and broadening of focus towards Kubernetes but other services such as Cassandra, Kafka, and Spark. D2iQ also now offers IT professional services in tandem with its products.
N/A
NGINX
Score 9.1 out of 10
Enterprise companies (1,001+ employees)
NGINX, a business unit of F5 Networks, powers over 65% of the world's busiest websites and web applications. NGINX started out as an open source web server and reverse proxy, built to be faster and more efficient than Apache. Over the years, NGINX has built a suite of infrastructure software products o tackle some of the biggest challenges in managing high-transaction applications. NGINX offers a suite of products to form the core of what organizations need to create…
N/A
Portainer
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Portainer is a centralized container management platform for containerized apps and IoT device management. It helps accelerate container adoption and reduce time-to-value on Kubernetes, Docker, and Swarm with a management portal, allowing users to deliver and manage containerized applications from the data center to the edge. Portainer helps - Reduce the operational complexity associated with multi-cluster management Bridge the skills gap and facilitate feature…
Mesosphere vs. ECS Mesosphere has a direct competition with companies using AWS Cloud, as the ECS product is one of the closest competitors to Mesosphere. Mesosphere has an edge with simplistic hosting and deep and easy integration with Jenkins Pipelines and native plugins …
I happen to like mesosphere because it integrates well with a Jenkins based workflow, Deis is a little more Heroku like and it's not clear how to fit that model into a continuous-integration process. Kubernetes has also been criticized for being complicated.
All of those are paid solutions with very good features, but they also offer dedicated scenarios for web application hosting. If you run applications on on-premises web servers and don't have a Microsoft licence agreement, Nginx is a very good and reliable option, based on …
In our organization, we use different solutions depending on if the database is on premise or in the cloud. We went from multiple solutions across different departments towards a more consolidated model to achieve standardization and economies of scale. We’ve mainly moved …
How does it compare? We use Apache ATP server and we also use Tom Cat also owned by Apache, but both Apache, ATP, and MKA. They are relatively older than GX and so they're one problem for Apache and MKA they need more power, more memory, and more space.
NGINX have higher market share which obviously show to us it is the preferred choice of most of the customers. Both of platform competes in the Web and Application server areas, but due the security features of NGINX be more flexible this in my opinion makes more sense.
Apache is a market leader but NGINX is new and has new features. Lightweight and can handle static requests. We use EC2 and I believe NGINX is more suited when it comes to scalability.
Dyrectorio was nice but it feels unpolished Ugreen has docker management on its UGOS Pro and it seems quite nice for start but its UI is quite a bit worse then Portainer Another downside is that its GUI seems to be locked on a specific port for now
Had already more experience using Portainer and it was covering all immediate needs where scalability was not a concern. Definitely easier to use and to get started for anyone.
Portainer is open source and can be installed as a docker container. Portainer can also be used free of charge as a business edition for a limited number of installations. All you have to do is register with Portainer and receive a license key. Portainer is very easy to install …
Azure and AWS have their own issues, especially around complexity just to setup one thing that Portainer can do in 10 seconds. Octopus deploy has excellent logs, analytics and dashboard views - but the configuration is more of a hassle than Portainer. Overall for the projects …
Portainer is very simple to use for anyone who is new to docker and trying to build a server. It makes everything super easy to use because of it’s excellent UI/UX which makes it a good tool for beginners!
I wrote that earlier, I tried Docker desktop so many bugs with WSL and not free and it get sign out every login time, Tried SUSE rancher too complicated and good only for power users and whoever runs Kubernetes and very heavy. tried Dokage very simple and couldn’t do …
Portainer is, in my opinion, the most accessible and straight-forward means of entering the world of deploying and managing containers while also maintaining the ability to progress into advanced professional deployments and use.
Portainer takes the cup in terms of usability and features. It is also more useful for smaller deployments, whereas Kubernetes in our opinion and experience, could probably be more suited to certain other use cases. Portainer is also a fresh feel among all the preexisting …
Initially looked into using Rancher for container management but it is
aimed more at kubernetes deployments. I have used both at home and liked
Portainer more, especially since we are using docker standalone. From
In Kubernetes management, in my opinion I would say that Lens is superior. But if you only want to manage a few stacks, Portainer is superior because the gui offers a comprehensive way of managing all the deployed images and its versions.
Microsoft Azure, and arguably the leader in the field. The most negative point and which made us make the decision not to continue with them and to go with Portainer is the price. This is one of the most important points to consider, especially in small companies.
The reason I chose Portainer is that graphically it wins over Yacht, it has many more options to use even in the free version. You can connect more than one environment to one panel which makes it much easier to use multiple instances of Portainer and saves a lot of time.
I am using Rancher in Kubernetes environments. It was really the first product I used with it and never really had time to test out how well Portainer behaves on Kubernetes. For the exact same thing - Docker Swarm management I used Swarmpit some time ago, but I like Portainer …
Portainer is a user-friendly container management platform focused on Docker, providing a simplified graphical interface. Kubernetes (K8s) is a robust container orchestration platform that automates deployment and scaling, suitable for complex container environments. Docker is …
Portainer is a lot easier to use when compared to kubernetes. it is easy to get over whelmed by all the options in kubernetes but portainer makes it simple to build and deploy even to kubernetes.
Portainer seems to be the best when you start with small environments and can grow with them. Portainer is also good for beginners with not too much knowledge about containers. Finally the start-up with 5 nodes for free was a great benefit.
I think right now Mesosphere is newer to Windows environments and has some challenges with stepping in to big data scenarios where YARN is currently being used.
[NGINX] is very well suited for high performance. I have seen it used on servers with 1k current connections with no issues. Despite seeing it used in many environments I've never seen software developers use it over apache, express, IIS in local dev environments so it may be more difficult to setup. I've also seen it used to load balance again without issues.
Many developers, especially lesser experienced developers, don't have a really good background in setting up containers from the command line. Portainer is invaluable to them. Giving a UI to them gives them much more confidence and allows them to learn properties and capabilities of containers under far less stress. On the flip side of this, giving then a UI on a production system can lead to chaos...never give junior developers access to production servers.
Straight-forward configuration format that users of all skill levels can learn, and yet is powerful enough for the huge breadth of features that Nginx provides.
Massive scale right out the box. We've never had a Nginx instance overwhelmed by requests, and if we did it would be trivial to spin up more Nginx instances to handle the load.
SSL termination means that we can deliver content over HTTPS without needing our individual services to require TLS support. This saves us a lot of time and headache while keeping us secure.
Nginx is open-source and free, meaning that anyone can use it to power their services, from individual projects to billion-dollar websites.
Separating server maintenance with application development, providing a clear user interface for developers who don't want to worry about the underlying server.
RBAC for container deployment linked to a SAML IDP, not something particularly easy in a native Docker instance but point and shoot in Portainer, allowing the use of Azure / Okta etc to provide user access.
Image management with multiple repositories is super clear and reduces incidents
Setting up is a bit of a hassle, especially ZooKeeper state management and mesos and marathon quorum.
Occasionally, I observed some failures when deploying something onto Marathon. Logging or detailed error reporting can help.
Stale containers and inconsistent states resultant of the cluster failure are hard to solve and need a complete system restart to get it back to normal state.
Customer support can be strangely condescending, perhaps it's a language issue?
I find it a little weird how the release versions used for Nginx+ aren't the same as for open source version. It can be very confusing to determine the cross-compatibility of modules, etc., because of this.
It seems like some (most?) modules on their own site are ancient and no longer supported, so their documentation in this area needs work.
It's difficult to navigate between nginx.com commercial site and customer support. They need to be integrated together.
I'd love to see more work done on nginx+ monitoring without requiring logging every request. I understand that many statistics can only be derived from logs, but plenty should work without that. Logging is not an option in many environments.
Lack of granular RBAC control: While Portainer does have role-based access control (RBAC) features, they are not as granular as some users would like. Some users have reported that they would like to have more control over permissions for individual users or groups. This would enable more fine-grained control over who has access to which containers or clusters.
Limited support for non-Docker container technologies: While Portainer is primarily designed to manage Docker containers, it does have some limited support for other container technologies like Kubernetes and Docker Swarm. However, this support is not as robust as it is for Docker, and some users have reported that they would like to see better support for other container technologies.
Limited control over container networking: Portainer's networking features are somewhat limited compared to other container management tools. Some users have reported that they would like more control over container networking, including the ability to create custom networks and control IP addresses.
This tool is really easy to use and configure. Consumes very less system resources. It is highly modular and configurable. You can easily use it with other tools like certbot for SSLs. You can configure basic security with configuration and headers
Accessibility for Non-Experts: even with some people having a bit longer on-boarding it is still very simple Quick setup is insanely useful, we can get it running in 10 seconds after installing docker Portainer has once again super clean UI and is very user friendly. Deployment/monitoring and management are super easy. I can tell just from a glance if something is out of date (watching at you Watchtower not doing your job for some reason)
Community support is great, and they've also had a presence at conferences. Overall, there is no shortage of documentation and community support. We're currently using it to serve up some WordPress sites, and configuring NGINX for this purpose is well documented.
One of their staff members jumped on a video call immediately with me and led me through the problem and solution during a quick session of screen sharing. In this day and age that is above and beyond, especially when it comes to software. It took approximately 5-10 minutes to diagnose and fix, including pleasantries!
Mesosphere vs. ECS Mesosphere has a direct competition with companies using AWS Cloud, as the ECS product is one of the closest competitors to Mesosphere. Mesosphere has an edge with simplistic hosting and deep and easy integration with Jenkins Pipelines and native plugins support. ECS, on the other hand, does not have much integration with the continuous integration process and is somewhat complex to maintain and manage.
All of those are paid solutions with very good features, but they also offer dedicated scenarios for web application hosting. If you run applications on on-premises web servers and don't have a Microsoft licence agreement, Nginx is a very good and reliable option, based on Linux distributions and available as freeware.
Portainer takes the cup in terms of usability and features. It is also more useful for smaller deployments, whereas Kubernetes in our opinion and experience, could probably be more suited to certain other use cases. Portainer is also a fresh feel among all the preexisting container management solutions and brings positivity and a new breeze in the industry.
Our websites are noticeably faster, causing an increase in customer satisfaction.
Nginx has such a low memory/resource footprint that we save money from not needing multiple large, expensive servers.
Ability to load balance traffic, have server-redundancy, and have high-availability allows for 100% uptime and provides cost-effective solutions to alternatives that can cost a lot.
Instead of having 1 senior who does all the setup, debugging and caretaking of "all things docker" we now split the load on basically everyone in the team. Hard to put into direct numbers but with everyone helping themselves, noone alone is forced into that position "because you know how to do it" and overall we're more productive
