Nomad VS rancher

Doesn't look like it.

* https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/forks

* https://github.com/search?q=nomad%20fork&type=repositories

* https://www.google.com/search?q=hashicorp+nomad+forks

There are products that do similar things of course.

I don't have any further insight, but looking at <https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/forks?include=active&page...> coughed up https://github.com/atlassian/nomad/branches although confusingly it says "updated last week" but browsing any one of the branches seems to be stupid old so I got nothing

Finding conceptual forks, e.g. $(git push --mirror ...) would be trickier but I bet sourcegraph could do it

Ultimately, the question boils down to: what risk are you driving down: hitching your wagon to a dead stack, not getting security updates, not getting PRs merged, $other?

In previous post, we discussed creating a basic Nomad cluster in the Vultr cloud. Here, we will use the cluster created to deploy a load-balanced sample web app using the service discovery capability of Nomad and its native integration with the Traefik load balancer. The source code is available here for the reference.

Nomad is really awesome!

I only heard of this today, but it looks really interesting. It seems to finally get Kubernetes a bit closer to something like https://www.nomadproject.io/ in terms of complexity to install and operate.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of container orchestration and management, two prominent players have emerged: Kubernetes and HashiCorp's Nomad. While Kubernetes has gained widespread adoption and popularity, Nomad provides a compelling alternative that stands out for its simplicity and efficiency. In this blog post, we'll explore the advantages of using Nomad over Kubernetes and why it might be the right choice for certain use cases.

I can't discern how many are just those "dependabot" bumps but the 1400 forks show some are active https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/forks?include=active&page... including CircleCI who I would think have a stake in a libre Nomad https://github.com/circleci/nomad/tree/circleci/release-1.5....

Now maybe their goals don't align with the community, and/or they don't want to be in the maintainer business for such a project, but better than nothing

Could this be a solution? nomad

It worth noting that Nomad UI(a official web admin panel) has log tailing utility built-in so maybe partial work has already been done. The developers may have other concerns.

The related issue is https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/issues/10220

Did something happen to the Apache 2 rancher? https://github.com/rancher/rancher/blob/v2.7.5/LICENSE RKE2 is similarly Apache 2: https://github.com/rancher/rke2/blob/v1.26.7%2Brke2r1/LICENS...

I follow the 4 ABCD steps bellow, but the first pod deployment never ends. What's wrong in it? Logs and result screens are at the end. Detailed configuration can be found here.

CVE-2023-22651 is rated 9.9/10 : https://github.com/rancher/rancher/security/advisories/GHSA-6m9f-pj6w-w87g

Depends. When I came into my last company I immediately noticed the lack of reproducible environments. Brought this up a few times and was met with some resistance because "we didn't have the capacity"... Until prod went down and it took us 23 hours to bring it back up due to spaghetti terraform.

For the latest releases of rancher: https://github.com/rancher/rancher/releases When is Rancher 2.7.1 going to be released? The Rancher support matrix for 2.7.1 shows k8s v1.24.6 as the highest supported version and Azure will drop AKS v1.24 in a few months... Should this be a concern for us? What could happen if we create our cluster with Rancher for an unsupported K8s version? 1.25 for example. - Rancher 2.7.2 just got released including support for 1.25. I have however tested running unsupported versions before, unless there is major deprecations in the kubernetes API it is fine in my experience. If we move to AKS imported clusters, in case we add node pools, and upgrade the cluster, will those changes be reflected in the Rancher Platform? - Yep! If we face some issues by running an unsupported K8s version on Rancher Launched K8s clusters, is it possible to remove it from Rancher, do the stuff we need, and then import it into the platform? - Yes, however be careful and do testing before doing in prod. From top of mind: Remove cluster from rancher (if imported), if rancher created you might want to revoke ranchers SA key for the cluster first (so it can't remove it). Delete the cattle-system namespace, and any other cattle-* namespaces you don't want to keep. And do your thing. It looks like AKS is faster than Rancher regarding supported Kubernetes versions... We would like to know if Rancher will always be on track with AKS regarding the removal of K8s version support and new versions. - In my experience yes. (Been using rancher on all three clouds for a 4 years now). What are exactly the big differences between imported AKS and Rancher-launched AKS? What should we look at, and what issues can we face when using one or another? - The main difference is that rancher will not be able to upgrade the cluster for you. You will have to do that yourself.

variable "rancher" { type = object({ namespace = string version = string branch = string chart_set = list(object({ name = string value = string })) }) default = { namespace = "cattle-system" # There is a bug with destroying the cloud credentials in version 2.6.9 until 2.7.1 and will be fixed in next release 2.7.2. # See https://github.com/rancher/rancher/issues/39300 version = "2.7.0" branch = "stable" chart_set = [ { name = "replicas" value = 3 }, { name = "ingress.ingressClassName" value = "nginx-external" }, { name = "ingress.tls.source" value = "rancher" }, # There is a bug with the uninstallation of Rancher due to missing priorityClassName of rancher-webhook # The priorityClassName need to be set # See https://github.com/rancher/rancher/issues/40935 { name = "priorityClassName" value = "system-node-critical" } ] } description = "Rancher Helm chart properties." }

When I searched DuckDuckGo instead, the 12th link actually had the real answer. It's in this issue on Rancher's GitHub. Turns out the Rancher admin needs to be in all of the Keycloak groups they want to have show up in the auto-populated picklist in Rancher. Being a Keycloak admin and even creating the groups isn't good enough. Frustratingly, the "caveat" note the Rancher guy is pointing to that says this is only present in the guide to setting up Keycloak for SAML, but apparently this is also true for OIDC.

Explicitly set TLS 1.3 in Rancher, though it could be a bug in Rancher: https://github.com/rancher/rancher/issues/35654

Thanks. Yeah looks like this might work: https://github.com/rancher/rancher/releases/tag/v2.7.2-rc3