It's complicated, because the definition of Service Fabric seems to be in flux.
The "original" Service Fabric is a high-level framework which requires invasive source code changes (you can't just drop an existing app on top of it), but gives you lots of benefits (scale, reliability etc) if you make the effort.
Recently container-based platforms - Docker, Kubernetes, etc - have come along with a different tradeoff: better compatibility with existing applications in exchange for less magical benefits. That approach is getting much more traction, and I think internally at Microsoft there is some infighting between the "Service Fabric camp" and the "Containers camp". One consequence of the infighting is that Service Fabric is extending its scope to include features like "container support". It's not clear to what extent that is done in collaboration with the "container people", or as a way to bypass them. I think they are still trying to decide whether to embrace Kubernetes, or replicate the functionality in-house. My prediction is that the container-based approach will win, but if will take time for the politics to fully play out. In the meantime things will continue to be confusing.
Bottom line: when evaluating Service Fabric, watch out for confusing and inconsistent use of the brand. It's a common pattern with large vendors - for example IBM with "Bluemix", SAP with "Hana", etc.
Okay that's about what it looked like to me too. There's only so many magic words you can throw at a tech and expect it to work together happily. Looking into it, the stateful service side of SF doesn't seem particularly compatible with the container side of it. A stateful service is a stateful SF service, and a container service is its own thing. Maybe there's a way to plug them together but unfortunately I didn't see it.
The "original" Service Fabric is a high-level framework which requires invasive source code changes (you can't just drop an existing app on top of it), but gives you lots of benefits (scale, reliability etc) if you make the effort.
Recently container-based platforms - Docker, Kubernetes, etc - have come along with a different tradeoff: better compatibility with existing applications in exchange for less magical benefits. That approach is getting much more traction, and I think internally at Microsoft there is some infighting between the "Service Fabric camp" and the "Containers camp". One consequence of the infighting is that Service Fabric is extending its scope to include features like "container support". It's not clear to what extent that is done in collaboration with the "container people", or as a way to bypass them. I think they are still trying to decide whether to embrace Kubernetes, or replicate the functionality in-house. My prediction is that the container-based approach will win, but if will take time for the politics to fully play out. In the meantime things will continue to be confusing.
Bottom line: when evaluating Service Fabric, watch out for confusing and inconsistent use of the brand. It's a common pattern with large vendors - for example IBM with "Bluemix", SAP with "Hana", etc.