5 ms·

How does this compare to Pixie? [0] [0]: https://github.com/pixie-io/pixie https://github.com/pixie-io/pixie

• outgame 5y ago
  Polar signals develops Parca [0] which is another eBPF observability tool, and Isovalent develops Cilium [1] which is built on eBPF as well. Genuinely curious if there are differences, or if eBPF only allows for specific observability functionality and each tool has it all. [0]: https://github.com/parca-dev/parca https://github.com/parca-dev/parca [1]: https://github.com/cilium/cilium https://github.com/cilium/cilium
  • brancz 5y ago
    Polar Signals founder and one of the creators of Parca here. From what I can tell ContainIQ is distinct from Parca and Polar Signals as we only concern ourselves with continuous profiling, which is complementary to metrics, logs and traces. From our experience, while eBPF is certainly limited and it can be painful to work with the verifier at times, it hits a sweet spot for observability collection because of low overhead and you really only read some structs from memory somewhere for which the limitations of eBPF tend to be plentiful. Definitely excited to see more eBPF tooling appear in the observability space.
    • NWMatherson 5y ago
      Well said, we are excited to see more eBPF tooling appear as well.
• NWMatherson 5y ago
  Pixie is definitely similar in their eBPF based approach. I believe there are differences in the types of data they collect and correlate with. For example we collect logs and state information (node status, node conditions, pod scheduled ect) along side our eBPF based metrics like latency. I'm sure there are things they collect that we don’t as well.