|
Re: peanut-gallery thoughts about GRPC
Jayant Kolhe
gRPC protocol was designed to build high performance, cross platform and usable libraries for building microservices. It was designed on top of HTTP2 to explicitly make use of
Many of gRPC features work well only on HTTP2 semantics. While implementing gRPC on top of HTTP1.1 downgrade is feasible, such implementation would lose many of gRPC advantages of efficient usage of network resources and high performance. It would add significant complexity across multiple language implementations and would have higher bar and complexity for implementing and testing interoperability across these implementations. We have also relied on adoption of HTTP2 which has been very rapid and hence the ecosystem is also evolving rapidly to support HTTP2 features. We have also relied on proxies to provide this functionality to allow http1.x only ecosystem to work with gRPC. Such support exists in many proxies (nghttpx, linkerd, envoy) and is coming to others like nginx..Hence we have not implemented gRPC on HTTP 1.x.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Brian Grant <briangrant@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: peanut-gallery thoughts about GRPC
alexis richardson
+1, protocols FTW ;-)
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Matt T. Proud ⚔ <matt.proud@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: peanut-gallery thoughts about GRPC
Matt T. Proud
Since you asked the peanut gallery: I would be delighted to see gRPC supersede Thrift and Finangle for a laundry list of reasons. The crux: being burned by Thrift and Finangle's cross-language and -runtime interoperability problems. gRPC was motivated by this interoperability on day one; whereas it felt like an afterthought in Thrift. Further: Finangle's operational metrics — last I looked at them in 2013 — were pretty incomprehensible (frankly felt a deep sense of pity for anyone oncall for a system built on top of it). gRPC is self-standingly a natural addition to a reference implementation's portfolio. My only regret was its not arriving "on the block" a year or two sooner — lest another generation's mind be wasted to a substandard technology. ;)
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:16 PM Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: peanut-gallery thoughts about GRPC
alexis richardson
Brandon, Thank-you. It may help if I mention why I raised the question about HTTP 1.x. Overall we are fans of gRPC at Weaveworks. But we stumbled into some issues when trying to use it in this case: alexis
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Brandon Philips <brandon.philips@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0
Brian Grant
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Ram, J via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Given that security spans all the layers and is a complex topic, I'm not sure what we'd add at the current level of detail.
Service naming, discovery, load balancing, and routing (service fabric/mesh approaches) are intended to be covered by slide 6. Is there a specific terminology clarification that you'd like to see? Or would you like us to merge the "Coordination" and "Service Management" sub-bullets into a single list? What exactly do you mean by "service directory"?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0
Brian Grant
YES
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: השב: [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0
Brian Grant
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Yaron Haviv via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hi, Yaron. This layer diagram is extremely high-level, and the explanations of the levels are intended to be descriptive rather than exhaustive, so it doesn't preclude the service broker model.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: peanut-gallery thoughts about GRPC
Brandon Philips <brandon.philips@...>
On gRPC and HTTP 1.x I think the best way to bring gRPC to the HTTP 1.x world is via OpenAPI (formerly swagger) and JSON, see the blog post here: http://www.grpc.io/blog/coreos We do this in etcd v3: provide endpoints for HTTP 2.x + gRPC and HTTP 1.x + JSON.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:42 AM Brian Grant via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
[devroom-managers] "Cloud and Monitoring" and "Containers and Microservices" devrooms Joint Call for Proposals
FYI for awareness, CNCF is also sponsoring FOSDEM this year Begin forwarded message:
|
||
|
|
||
|
השב: [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0
Yaron Haviv
Chris,
Probably too late to comment, but looking at the charts seems like we are missing a notion of resources binding / dependency, similar to cloud foundry
E. G. A web Micro-Service binds to (or depends on) a database Micro-Service with a certain url, this helps orchestration to determine the provisioning steps, and helps the app find the resources it builds on
Yaron
נשלח ממכשיר הSamsung שלי
-------- הודעה מקורית -------- מאת: Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> תאריך: 24/10/2016 14:15 (GMT+02:00) אל: cncf-toc@... נושא: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0 Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before):
This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote!
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0
Ram, J <j.ram@...>
Sorry, I missed that last call. So apologies if this was discussed. Two thoughts/Questions that come to mind when looking thru the slides:
a) Emphasis on security seem to be missing. It might be implicit, but being explicit might be useful. So calling out some aspects of it in application definition, orchestration and runtime would change that. I suspect that orchestration and runtime would get more interesting if complex security policies are modelled in the application definition.
b) Not sure if this is group to address: I feel, that no consistent implementation or standard for Service Directory exist. The most consistent yellow pages we seem to have DNS. For the new generation of applications, is that enough? Should we call out Service directory under service management?
From: cncf-toc-bounces@... [mailto:cncf-toc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc
Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before):
This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote!
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: [VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0
alexis richardson
YES
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:15 PM Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
[VOTE] End User Reference Architecture v1.0
Last week at the CNCF TOC meeting, we discussed issues with the CNCF Reference Architecture and felt it was ready to finalize (and much better than what we had before): This is a call to formalize the reference architecture, so TOC members please vote! Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: peanut-gallery thoughts about GRPC
Brian Grant
+Varun and Jayant to answer that
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: peanut-gallery thoughts about GRPC
alexis richardson
I'd like to understand why gRPC doesn't work with HTTP 1.x
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, 18:45 Ben Sigelman via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
peanut-gallery thoughts about GRPC
Ben Sigelman
Hi all, "I am not on the TOC, but" I did want to share a few thoughts about GRPC per the call the other day. I was recently at one of those moderated VC dinners where everyone gets put on the spot to say something "insightful" (sic) – I'm sure we all know the scenario. Anyway, we had to go around the table and talk about "the one OSS project that's poised to change the way the industry functions". There were lots of mentions of Docker, k8s, etc, and for good reason. I had the bad luck of being last and felt like it wasn't useful to just +1 someone else's comment, and I realized that GRPC was in many ways an excellent answer. Varun alluded to this in his presentation, but to restate it in different words: the value of an RPC system is mostly not actually about the RPC... it's the service discovery, client-side load balancing, well-factored monitoring, context propagation, and so on. In that way, a high-quality RPC system is arguably the lynchpin of the "user-level OS" that sits just below the application code but above the actual (kernel) syscalls. An alternative approach moves things like RPC into its own process (a la linkerd(*)) and I think that makes sense in certain situations... but when the RPC system depends on data from its host process beyond the RPC payload and peer identity (which is often the case for more sophisticated microservice deployments), OR when "throughput matters" and extra copies are unacceptable, an in-process RPC subsystem is the right approach. As for whether GRPC is the right in-process RPC system to incubate: I think that's a no-brainer. It has good momentum, the code is of a much higher quality and works in more languages than the alternatives, and Google's decision to adopt it internally will help to ensure that it works within scaled-out systems (both architecturally and in terms of raw performance). Apache Thrift moves quite slowly in my experience and has glaring problems in many languages; Finagle is mature but is limited to JVM (and perhaps bites off more than it can chew at times); other entrants that I'm aware of don't have a strong community behind them. So yes, this is just an enthusiastic +1 from me. Hope the above makes sense and isn't blindingly obvious. :) Comments / disagreements welcome – Ben (*): re linkerd specifically: I am a fan, and IMO this is a "both/and" situation, not "either/or"...
|
||
|
|
||
|
RFC: Project Proposal for Fluentd
At yesterday's TOC meeting, we discussed formalizing a Fluentd project proposal after having a great experience collaborating with the Fluentd community: For the TOC and wider CNCF community, please take a look at the proposal (https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/20/files) and make any comments/suggestions on the PR. If there aren't any major issues, we will call for a formal vote towards the end of next week. Thanks! Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: [VOTE] CNCF Code of Conduct
Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
Yes
On 20 October 2016 at 17:12, Benjamin Hindman via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: [VOTE] CNCF Code of Conduct
Benjamin Hindman
Yes.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
--
Benjamin Hindman Founder of Mesosphere and Co-Creator of Apache Mesos Follow us on Twitter: @mesosphere
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: [VOTE] CNCF Code of Conduct
Brian Grant
YES
|
||
|
|
See how DC/OS elastically runs