5 ms·

Many similar projects are listed here: https://github.com/go-kit/kit#related-projects https://github.com/go-kit/kit#related-projects go-micro seems like it doe

Many similar projects are listed here: https://github.com/go-kit/kit#related-projects https://github.com/go-kit/kit#related-projects go-micro seems like it does a bit too much, like service discovery and balancing within the framework when that's likely better handled by an Envoy/Istio.

jrockway 4y ago
I think not having to run a sidecar is pretty valuable. The entire "service mesh" industry is predicated on not modifying existing code, which I totally get (ops teams can rarely get the dev team to understand their constraints), but if you are actually "devops" and the developers can handle mTLS, tracing, authn/authz, etc. inside their app in a standard way, the software stack is a lot easier to understand and maintain. Sidecar proxies also have the fatal flaw that they can't propagate a distributed trace, so if incoming RPC call triggers outgoing calls (common in microservices, for better or for worse), then you lose the link between them. To do that, your application has to remember the trace ID and pass it along from the server to the client. For reasons like that, I'm kind of bearish on premade service meshes. But, they are OK for mTLS. gRPC has added a lot of code in recent years to support xDS, which lets clients discover endpoints, load assignments, locality, etc. and lets your app do the right thing without an intermediate proxy. It can just connect directly to the control plane and make the same routing decisions a proxy would. That's the ideal situation to me.
- esprehn 4y ago
  My experience is that tools like this don't scale in most organizations of even moderate size. Soon folks will want to write services in deno or ruby and the go first approach won't work anymore. Now you have "misbehaving" services connected to the system that may not implement load balancing or back off properly. I've also seen it cause a lot of pain during upgrades since upgrading the service framework is implicitly upgrading so many other components and the framework is probably not being diligent about only improving one component (ex. Auth) per release. Sometimes that leads to basically never upgrading to avoid the risk. It's true you need to do propagation for tracing but open telemetry has pretty broad support these days. That cost seems worth the stability and control.
  - hintymad 4y ago
    Netflix was using client-side discovery only. They did run into the issue of supporting multiple languages and invented their own sidecar, but it was a huge productivity boost for them as the decision and customization on service discovery and traffic routing was distributed to individual teams.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - TheSwordsman 4y ago
      If you're talking about the sidecar process I think you're talking about, that thing sorta sucked. It was a great idea, but execution lacked and it caused all sorts of issues as a result. Also ended up becoming sort of abandoned, while people still relied on it for critical stuff. Netflix eventually moved away from HTTP+JSON to gRPC for backend services, and also started to expose internal DNS-based service discovery. This removed the need for that sidecar from _most_ places, since you could just generate code from protobufs, but it created other problems. Specifically, it was hard to apply the same resiliency patterns across multiple languages when calling those APIs, and so that would then contribute to weird incidents. I'm not there anymore, but last context I have is that things are moving to an Envoy-based model now. The idea is that everything will use the sidecar, and resiliency patterns will be baked in at that layer. I suspect that'll be a better architecture in the long run.
      - hintymad 4y ago
        Thanks for the insight. > also started to expose internal DNS-based service discovery. Then this is similar to Consul-based service discovery. In that case, do you know how Netflix continued to support their client-defined routing rules, like selecting a specific set of nodes of a given service to route traffic to? I'd imagine that the number of IP addresses in an ARecord is limited too, so a service won't retrieve the entire list of IPs from a DNS record?
        4y ago

jrockway 4y ago

I think not having to run a sidecar is pretty valuable. The entire "service mesh" industry is predicated on not modifying existing code, which I totally get (ops teams can rarely get the dev team to understand their constraints), but if you are actually "devops" and the developers can handle mTLS, tracing, authn/authz, etc. inside their app in a standard way, the software stack is a lot easier to understand and maintain. Sidecar proxies also have the fatal flaw that they can't propagate a distributed trace, so if incoming RPC call triggers outgoing calls (common in microservices, for better or for worse), then you lose the link between them. To do that, your application has to remember the trace ID and pass it along from the server to the client. For reasons like that, I'm kind of bearish on premade service meshes. But, they are OK for mTLS. gRPC has added a lot of code in recent years to support xDS, which lets clients discover endpoints, load assignments, locality, etc. and lets your app do the right thing without an intermediate proxy. It can just connect directly to the control plane and make the same routing decisions a proxy would. That's the ideal situation to me.

esprehn 4y ago
My experience is that tools like this don't scale in most organizations of even moderate size. Soon folks will want to write services in deno or ruby and the go first approach won't work anymore. Now you have "misbehaving" services connected to the system that may not implement load balancing or back off properly. I've also seen it cause a lot of pain during upgrades since upgrading the service framework is implicitly upgrading so many other components and the framework is probably not being diligent about only improving one component (ex. Auth) per release. Sometimes that leads to basically never upgrading to avoid the risk. It's true you need to do propagation for tracing but open telemetry has pretty broad support these days. That cost seems worth the stability and control.
- hintymad 4y ago
  Netflix was using client-side discovery only. They did run into the issue of supporting multiple languages and invented their own sidecar, but it was a huge productivity boost for them as the decision and customization on service discovery and traffic routing was distributed to individual teams.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheSwordsman 4y ago
    If you're talking about the sidecar process I think you're talking about, that thing sorta sucked. It was a great idea, but execution lacked and it caused all sorts of issues as a result. Also ended up becoming sort of abandoned, while people still relied on it for critical stuff. Netflix eventually moved away from HTTP+JSON to gRPC for backend services, and also started to expose internal DNS-based service discovery. This removed the need for that sidecar from _most_ places, since you could just generate code from protobufs, but it created other problems. Specifically, it was hard to apply the same resiliency patterns across multiple languages when calling those APIs, and so that would then contribute to weird incidents. I'm not there anymore, but last context I have is that things are moving to an Envoy-based model now. The idea is that everything will use the sidecar, and resiliency patterns will be baked in at that layer. I suspect that'll be a better architecture in the long run.
    - hintymad 4y ago
      Thanks for the insight. > also started to expose internal DNS-based service discovery. Then this is similar to Consul-based service discovery. In that case, do you know how Netflix continued to support their client-defined routing rules, like selecting a specific set of nodes of a given service to route traffic to? I'd imagine that the number of IP addresses in an ARecord is limited too, so a service won't retrieve the entire list of IPs from a DNS record?
      - 4y ago