3 ms·
I think the two projects focus on different things. Consul provides features like health checking, failure detection besides its consistent key-value store. It
by ideal0227 10y ago
I think the two projects focus on different things.
Consul provides features like health checking, failure detection besides its consistent key-value store. It aims to provide an all-in-one solution[0].
etcd focuses on the consistent key-value store. The key-value store has more advanced features like multi-version keys, reliable watches, and provides better performance. People build additional features on top of etcd's key-value store/raft.
(I work on etcd)
[0] https://www.consul.io/intro/vs/index.html https://www.consul.io/intro/vs/index.html
- otterley 10y agoDo you have proof of the "better performance" claim?
- ideal0227 10y agoConsul: https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/blob/master/bench/results-0.3.md https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/blob/master/bench/result... etcd: https://github.com/coreos/etcd/blob/master/Documentation/op-guide/performance.md#benchmarks https://github.com/coreos/etcd/blob/master/Documentation/op-... Note that the testing environments are not exact the same in the doc I listed, but comparable. Also Consul performance is improved after a few releases. So we did the benchmark internally on the same environment. The result is still comparable to what I listed in the two official docs. The best way to compare performance is still probably to run the benchmark on your own environment.
- yo-code-sucks 10y agoEvery time we used etcd in production we had a bad time with keys and consistency.