Docker vs rkt

Overview

Docker

Stacks194.2K

Followers143.8K

Votes3.9K

rkt

Stacks29

Followers112

Votes10

Docker vs rkt: What are the differences?

Docker vs rkt: Key Differences

Docker and rkt are both container runtimes used to create, deploy, and manage containerized applications. However, there are several key differences that set these two tools apart:

Container Image Format: Docker uses its own container image format called Docker Image, which includes the application code along with its dependencies bundled together. On the other hand, rkt uses the App Container (ACI) format, which separates the application code and its dependencies into different layers. This allows for better security and easier management of container images in rkt.
Architecture and Design Philosophy: Docker is built around a client-server architecture, where the Docker daemon runs on the host system and manages the containers. In contrast, rkt follows a decentralized design philosophy, where each rkt instance is independent and self-contained. This makes rkt more lightweight and less reliant on a central daemon for operations.
Security Model: Docker has a relatively complex security model, where containers are run with elevated privileges by default. Although Docker has made significant improvements in security, the attack surface area is larger compared to rkt. On the other hand, rkt implements a simpler and more secure security model, by running containers with minimal privileges and using features like namespaces and seccomp for isolation.
Networking: Docker provides a built-in networking solution called Docker Networking, which allows containers to communicate with each other and the outside world. Docker Networking supports multiple networking drivers and provides features like port mapping and overlay networks. In comparison, rkt does not include a built-in networking solution. Instead, it relies on external tools like CNI (Container Network Interface) plugins for networking configurations.
Integration with Orchestration Tools: Docker has gained widespread popularity and has a strong ecosystem with excellent integration with orchestration tools like Kubernetes and Docker Swarm. Many containerized applications and tools have been developed specifically for the Docker ecosystem. While rkt has started gaining popularity, it has limited integration with orchestration tools and a smaller ecosystem compared to Docker.
Ease of Use and User Experience: Docker has invested heavily in providing a user-friendly and intuitive interface for building, deploying, and managing containers. The Docker CLI (Command Line Interface) is well-documented and widely adopted by developers and system administrators. On the other hand, rkt offers a more minimalistic and command-line focused user experience. Although rkt is straightforward to use, it may require a slightly steeper learning curve compared to Docker for beginners.

In summary, Docker and rkt differ in their container image format, architecture, security model, networking capabilities, integration with orchestration tools, and user experience. While Docker has a larger ecosystem and a more user-friendly interface, rkt offers better security and a decentralized design philosophy.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Docker, rkt

Florian

IT DevOp at Agitos GmbH

Oct 22, 2019

Decided

lxd/lxc and Docker aren't congruent so this comparison needs a more detailed look; but in short I can say: the lxd-integrated administration of storage including zfs with its snapshot capabilities as well as the system container (multi-process) approach of lxc vs. the limited single-process container approach of Docker is the main reason I chose lxd over Docker.

483k views483k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Docker	rkt
The Docker Platform is the industry-leading container platform for continuous, high-velocity innovation, enabling organizations to seamlessly build and share any application — from legacy to what comes next — and securely run them anywhere	Rocket is a cli for running App Containers. The goal of rocket is to be composable, secure, and fast.
Integrated developer tools; open, portable images; shareable, reusable apps; framework-aware builds; standardized templates; multi-environment support; remote registry management; simple setup for Docker and Kubernetes; certified Kubernetes; application templates; enterprise controls; secure software supply chain; industry-leading container runtime; image scanning; access controls; image signing; caching and mirroring; image lifecycle; policy-based image promotion	Composable. All tools for downloading, installing, and running containers should be well integrated, but independent and composable.;Security. Isolation should be pluggable, and the crypto primitives for strong trust, image auditing and application identity should exist from day one.;Image distribution. Discovery of container images should be simple and facilitate a federated namespace, and distributed retrieval. This opens the possibility of alternative protocols, such as BitTorrent, and deployments to private environments without the requirement of a registry.;Open. The format and runtime should be well-specified and developed by a community. We want independent implementations of tools to be able to run the same container consistently.
Statistics
Stacks 194.2K	Stacks 29
Followers 143.8K	Followers 112
Votes 3.9K	Votes 10
Pros & Cons
Pros 823 Rapid integration and build up 692 Isolation 521 Open source 505 Testability and reproducibility 460 Lightweight Cons 8 New versions == broken features 6 Unreliable networking 6 Documentation not always in sync 4 Moves quickly 3 Not Secure	Pros 5 Security 3 Robust container portability 2 Composable containers
Integrations
Java Docker Compose VirtualBox Linux Amazon EC2 Container Service Docker Swarm boot2docker Kubernetes Docker Machine Vagrant	No integrations available

What are some alternatives to Docker, rkt?

LXD

LXD isn't a rewrite of LXC, in fact it's building on top of LXC to provide a new, better user experience. Under the hood, LXD uses LXC through liblxc and its Go binding to create and manage the containers. It's basically an alternative to LXC's tools and distribution template system with the added features that come from being controllable over the network.

LXC

LXC is a userspace interface for the Linux kernel containment features. Through a powerful API and simple tools, it lets Linux users easily create and manage system or application containers.

Vagrant Cloud

Vagrant Cloud pairs with Vagrant to enable access, insight and collaboration across teams, as well as to bring exposure to community contributions and development environments.

Studio 3T

It's the only MongoDB tool that provides three ways to explore data alongside powerful features like query autocompletion, polyglot code generation, a stage-by-stage aggregation query builder, import and export, SQL query support and more.

OpenVZ

Virtuozzo leverages OpenVZ as its core of a virtualization solution offered by Virtuozzo company. Virtuozzo is optimized for hosters and offers hypervisor (VMs in addition to containers), distributed cloud storage, dedicated support, management tools, and easy installation.

SmartOS

It combines the capabilities you get from a lightweight container OS, optimized to deliver containers, with the robust security, networking and storage capabilities you’ve come to expect and depend on from a hardware hypervisor.

Clear Containers

We set out to build Clear Containers by leveraging the isolation of virtual-machine technology along with the deployment benefits of containers. As part of this, we let go of the "generic PC hardware" notion traditionally associated with virtual machines; we're not going to pretend to be a standard PC that is compatible with just about any OS on the planet.

Flatpak

It is a next-generation technology for building and distributing desktop applications on Linux

Lima

It launches Linux virtual machines with automatic file sharing, port forwarding, and containerd. It can be considered as some sort of unofficial "macOS subsystem for Linux", or "containerd for Mac". It is expected to be used on macOS hosts, but can be used on Linux hosts as well. It may work on NetBSD and Windows hosts as well.

Boxfuse

It generates minimal images for your application in seconds. They boot directly on virtual hardware. There is no classic OS and no container runtime.

Related Comparisons

Docker vs rkt: What are the differences?

Docker vs rkt: Key Differences

Docker and rkt are both container runtimes used to create, deploy, and manage containerized applications. However, there are several key differences that set these two tools apart:

Container Image Format: Docker uses its own container image format called Docker Image, which includes the application code along with its dependencies bundled together. On the other hand, rkt uses the App Container (ACI) format, which separates the application code and its dependencies into different layers. This allows for better security and easier management of container images in rkt.
Architecture and Design Philosophy: Docker is built around a client-server architecture, where the Docker daemon runs on the host system and manages the containers. In contrast, rkt follows a decentralized design philosophy, where each rkt instance is independent and self-contained. This makes rkt more lightweight and less reliant on a central daemon for operations.
Security Model: Docker has a relatively complex security model, where containers are run with elevated privileges by default. Although Docker has made significant improvements in security, the attack surface area is larger compared to rkt. On the other hand, rkt implements a simpler and more secure security model, by running containers with minimal privileges and using features like namespaces and seccomp for isolation.
Networking: Docker provides a built-in networking solution called Docker Networking, which allows containers to communicate with each other and the outside world. Docker Networking supports multiple networking drivers and provides features like port mapping and overlay networks. In comparison, rkt does not include a built-in networking solution. Instead, it relies on external tools like CNI (Container Network Interface) plugins for networking configurations.
Integration with Orchestration Tools: Docker has gained widespread popularity and has a strong ecosystem with excellent integration with orchestration tools like Kubernetes and Docker Swarm. Many containerized applications and tools have been developed specifically for the Docker ecosystem. While rkt has started gaining popularity, it has limited integration with orchestration tools and a smaller ecosystem compared to Docker.
Ease of Use and User Experience: Docker has invested heavily in providing a user-friendly and intuitive interface for building, deploying, and managing containers. The Docker CLI (Command Line Interface) is well-documented and widely adopted by developers and system administrators. On the other hand, rkt offers a more minimalistic and command-line focused user experience. Although rkt is straightforward to use, it may require a slightly steeper learning curve compared to Docker for beginners.

Docker vs rkt

Overview

Docker vs rkt: What are the differences?