Pros of Nomad

• Nomad is a full-featured, production-ready container orchestration platform that can handle a wide range of workloads, including Docker, Podman, and more.
• Nomad provides advanced scheduling and resource management features, making it a powerful tool for running complex, distributed applications.
• Nomad is part of the HashiCorp ecosystem, which means it integrates well with other HashiCorp tools like Vault and Consul.

Cons of Nomad

• Nomad has a steeper learning curve compared to go-ps, as it is a more complex and feature-rich tool.
• Nomad requires more resources to run, as it is a full-fledged orchestration platform, while go-ps is a lightweight library.

Code Comparison

go-ps (mitchellh/go-ps):

func processes() ([]Process, error) {
    dir, err := os.Open("/proc")
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }
    defer dir.Close()

    names, err := dir.Readdirnames(-1)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }
}

Nomad (hashicorp/nomad):

func (c *Client) Run(ctx context.Context, job *Job) (*Evaluation, *ClientError) {
    resp, err := c.apiRequest(ctx, "POST", "/v1/jobs", job)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, NewClientError(err)
    }
    defer resp.Body.Close()

    var evalResp Evaluation
    if err := decodeBody(resp, &evalResp); err != nil {
        return nil, NewClientError(err)
    }

    return &evalResp, nil
}

Pros of shirou/gopsutil

• Provides a wider range of system information, including CPU, memory, disk, network, and process data.
• Supports multiple operating systems, including Windows, Linux, and macOS.
• Offers a more comprehensive set of functions for system monitoring and management.

Cons of shirou/gopsutil

• May have a larger codebase and dependencies compared to mitchellh/go-ps.
• May have a steeper learning curve due to the broader set of features and functionality.
• May have slightly lower performance for specific use cases where mitchellh/go-ps is more optimized.

Code Comparison

mitchellh/go-ps:

func Processes() ([]Process, error) {
    return processes()
}

type Process struct {
    Pid  int
    PPid int
}

shirou/gopsutil:

func Processes() ([]Process, error) {
    return processes()
}

type Process struct {
    Pid             int32
    PPid            int32
    Name           string
    Exe            string
    Cmdline        string
    CreateTime     int64
    Cwd            string
    Root           string
    Status         string
    Username       string
    Nice          int32
    Threads        int32
    CPUTimes       CPUTimesStat
    MemInfo        MemoryInfoStat
    IOCounters     IOCountersStat
    NumCtxSwitches NumCtxSwitchesStat
    NumFDs         int32
    NumThreads     int32
    Connections    []net.ConnectionStat
}

Pros of dnscontrol

• dnscontrol supports a wide range of DNS providers, making it a versatile tool for managing DNS configurations across multiple platforms.
• dnscontrol provides a declarative syntax for defining DNS configurations, making it easier to manage and version control DNS settings.
• dnscontrol includes built-in support for various DNS record types, such as A, CNAME, MX, and TXT records.

Cons of dnscontrol

• dnscontrol may have a steeper learning curve compared to go-ps, as it requires understanding the declarative syntax and configuration file structure.
• dnscontrol may have a larger codebase and dependencies, which could make it less lightweight and more resource-intensive than go-ps.

Code Comparison

go-ps:

func FindProcess(pid int) (Process, error) {
    p, err := os.FindProcess(pid)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }

    return &UnixProcess{Pid: pid, process: p}, nil
}

dnscontrol:

func (c *DNSControl) GetDomainCorrections(domain string) ([]*Correction, error) {
    corrections := []*Correction{}
    dc, err := c.Domains.LoadDomainConfig(domain)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }

    // Perform various checks and generate corrections
    // ...

    return corrections, nil
}

Pros of Elastic/Beats

• Elastic/Beats is a more comprehensive and feature-rich monitoring solution, providing a wide range of data collection agents for various systems and applications.
• The project has a large and active community, with extensive documentation and support resources available.
• Elastic/Beats integrates seamlessly with the Elastic Stack, allowing for powerful data analysis and visualization capabilities.

Cons of Elastic/Beats

• Elastic/Beats may have a steeper learning curve compared to the more lightweight and focused mitchellh/go-ps.
• The project's complexity and feature set may be overkill for users with simpler monitoring requirements.
• Elastic/Beats may have a higher resource footprint, particularly on systems with limited resources.

Code Comparison

mitchellh/go-ps:

func Processes() ([]Process, error) {
    var processes []Process

    files, err := ioutil.ReadDir("/proc")
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }

    for _, f := range files {
        if f.IsDir() && isInt(f.Name()) {
            p, err := newProcess(mustAtoi(f.Name()))
            if err == nil {
                processes = append(processes, p)
            }
        }
    }

    return processes, nil
}

Elastic/Beats:

func (b *Beat) Run(bt beat.Beater) error {
    err := b.Init()
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }

    // Register sigHandler
    b.registerSignalHandlers()

    // Marked as running
    b.isRunning = true
    defer func() { b.isRunning = false }()

    return bt.Run(b)
}

Pros of rkt

• rkt is a container runtime that provides a more secure and flexible alternative to Docker.
• rkt supports a wide range of container image formats, including Docker, OCI, and appc.
• rkt has a strong focus on security, with features like support for SELinux and AppArmor.

Cons of rkt

• rkt has a smaller community and ecosystem compared to Docker, which may make it harder to find support and resources.
• rkt has a steeper learning curve than Docker, especially for users who are already familiar with Docker.
• rkt may not be as widely adopted as Docker, which could limit its long-term viability.

Code Comparison

Here's a brief comparison of the code for the ps function in mitchellh/go-ps and the rkt command in rkt/rkt:

mitchellh/go-ps:

func ps() ([]Process, error) {
    pids, err := processes()
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }

    var procs []Process
    for _, pid := range pids {
        proc, err := newProcess(pid)
        if err != nil {
            return nil, err
        }
        procs = append(procs, proc)
    }

    return procs, nil
}

rkt/rkt:

func runRkt(args []string) error {
    cmd := exec.Command(rktBinPath, args...)
    cmd.Stdout = os.Stdout
    cmd.Stderr = os.Stderr
    return cmd.Run()
}