The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Container Orchestration Engines: A Thorough Functional and Performance Comparison
Abstract
In the last decade, novel software architectural patterns, such as microservices, have emerged to improve application modularity and to streamline their development, testing, scaling, and component replacement. To support these new trends, new practices as DevOps methodologies and tools, promoting better cooperation between software development and operations teams, have emerged to support automation and monitoring throughout the whole software construction lifecycle. That affected positively several IT companies, but also helped the transition to the softwarization of complex telco infrastructures in the last years. Container-based technologies played a crucial role by enabling microservice fast deployment and their scalability at low overhead; however, modern container-based applications may easily consist of hundreds of microservices services with complex interdependencies and call for advanced orchestration capabilities. While there are several emerging container orchestration engines, such as Docker Swarm, Kubernetes, Apache Mesos, and Cattle, a thorough functional and performance assessment to help IT managers in the selection of the most appropriate orchestration solution is still missing. This paper aims to fill that gap. Collected experimental results show that Kubernetes outperforms its counterparts for very complex application deployments, while other engines can be a better choice for simpler deployments.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Kubernetes [51] is functionally the most complete and adopted container orchestration system on the market [52]”
From Toward Context-Aware Anomaly Detection for AIOps in Microservices Using Dynamic Knowledge Graphs (2026) · cites this paper as [52]
Citations
Cites
Containers and Cloud: From LXC to Docker to Kubernetes
Bernstein, D. (2014) · IEEE Cloud Computing · doi:10.1109/mcc.2014.51 · Cited by 1,106
Virtualization vs Containerization to Support PaaS
Dua, R., Raja, A. R., & Kakadia, D. (2014) · IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering · doi:10.1109/ic2e.2014.41 · Cited by 315
Evaluating Performance of Containerized IoT Services for Clustered Devices at the Network Edge
Morabito, R., Farris, I., Iera, A., & Taleb, T. (2017) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2017.2714638 · Cited by 126
Performance Overhead Comparison between Hypervisor and Container Based Virtualization
Li, Z., Kihl, M., Lu, Q., et al. (2017) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA) · doi:10.1109/aina.2017.79 · Cited by 107
A performance evaluation of container technologies on Internet of Things devices
Morabito, R. (2016) · IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS) · doi:10.1109/infcomw.2016.7562228 · Cited by 74
Software Defined Network Service Chaining for OTT Service Providers in 5G Networks
Datsika, E., Antonopoulos, A., Zorba, N., & Verikoukis, C. V. (2017) · IEEE Communications Magazine · doi:10.1109/mcom.2017.1700108 · Cited by 29
Nikdel, Z., Gao, B., & Neville, S. W. (2017) · IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on Communications, Computers and Signal Processing (PACRIM) · doi:10.1109/pacrim.2017.8121898 · Cited by 28
Delnat, W., Truyen, E., Rafique, A., et al. (2018) · doi:10.1145/3194133.3194162 · Cited by 20
Performance of Container Networking Technologies
Zhao, Y., Xia, N., Tian, C., et al. (2017) · doi:10.1145/3094405.3094406 · Cited by 19
Dikaleh, S. G., Sheikh, O., & Felix, C. (2017) · Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research · Cited by 8
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- isenberg, 0, Container Orchestration Wars, Velocity 2016
- rouse, 2016, What is Docker Swarm?, TechTarget
Cited by
Toward Context-Aware Anomaly Detection for AIOps in Microservices Using Dynamic Knowledge Graphs
Moens, P., Steenwinckel, B., Ongenae, F., Volckaert, B., & Hoecke, S. V. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2026.3652304 · Cited by 6
“Kubernetes[51] is functionally the most complete and adopted container orchestration system on the market [52], however, the ontology proposed in this research can easily be extended towards other container-based architectures, such as Docker Swarm [53] or Apache Mesos [54].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Jawarneh, I. M. A., Bellavista, P., Bosi, F., Foschini, L., Martuscelli, G., Montanari, R., & Palopoli, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Bologna (IT)
- Venue
- ICC 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2019-05
- Pages
- 1-6
- ISSN
- 1550-3607 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2960287963
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12
- FWCI
- 10.75
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- International Conference on Communications (publishedVersion)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Distributed systems and fault tolerance
- Keywords
- container orchestration, Kubernetes, Docker Swarm, Apache Mesos, cattle, microservices, DevOps, performance comparison, software-defined networking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
