keda VS argo

It seems you want something like KEDA (https://keda.sh)

Most just utilize out of the box macro resources available in HPA.

For more advanced use cases there is keda - https://keda.sh/

Thankfully KEDA operator was already part of the cluster, and all Robin had to do was create a ScaledObject manifest targeting the Dispatch ScaleUp event, based on the rabbitmq_global_messages_received_total metric from Prometheus.

Keda

KEDA introduces event-driven scaling to Kubernetes workloads. It integrates with Kubernetes Horizontal Pod Autoscalers and can scale pods based on external metrics from services like databases and message queues (Kafka, RabbitMQ, MongoDB).

# update version 2.8.2 if required kubectl apply -f https://github.com/kedacore/keda/releases/download/v2.8.2/keda-2.8.2.yaml

This is traditionally a AWS Lambda usecase - or an OpenFaas kind of usecase. But very recently i discovered https://keda.sh/ and it seems it is specifically meant for this in a kubernetes environment.

If you deploy the application to Amazon EKS, you can also consider using KEDA to auto-scale your consumer application based on the number of messages in the MSK topic.

Like Argo Workflows?

https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows

Dagger looks more comparable to Argo Workflows: https://argoproj.github.io/argo-workflows/ That's the first of the Argo projects, which can run multi-step workflows within containers on Kubernetes.

For what it's worth, my colleagues and I have had great luck with Argo Workflows and wrote up a blog post about some of its advantages a few years ago: https://www.interline.io/blog/scaling-openstreetmap-data-wor...

Despite other alternatives like Circle CI, Travis CI, GitLab CI or even self-hosted options using open-source projects like Tekton or Argo Workflow, the reason for choosing GitHub Actions was straightforward: GitHub Actions, in conjunction with the GitHub ecosystem, offers a user-friendly experience and access to a rich software marketplace.

author seems to be describing the kind of patterns you might make with https://argoproj.github.io/argo-workflows/ . or see for example https://github.com/couler-proj/couler , which is an sdk for describing tasks that may be submitted to different workflow engines on the backend.

it's a little confusing to me that the author seems to object to "pipelines" and then equate them with messaging-queues. for me at least, "pipeline" vs "workflow-engine" vs "scheduler" are all basically synonyms in this context. those things may or may not be implemented with a message-queue for persistence, but the persistence layer itself is usually below the level of abstraction that $current_problem is really concerned with. like the author says, eventually you have to track state/timestamps/logs, but you get that from the beginning if you start with a workflow engine.

i agree with author that message-queues should not be a knee-jerk response to most problems because the LoE for edge-cases/observability/monitoring is huge. (maybe reach for a queue only if you may actually overwhelm whatever the "scheduler" can handle.) but don't build the scheduler from scratch either.. use argowf, kubeflow, or a more opinionated framework like airflow, mlflow, databricks, aws lamda or step-functions. all/any of these should have config or api that's robust enough to express rate-limit/retry stuff. almost any of these choices has better observability out-of-the-box than you can easily get from a queue. but most importantly.. they provide idioms for handling failure that data-science folks and junior devs can work with. the right way to structure code is just much more clear and things like structuring messages/events, subclassing workers, repeating/retrying tasks, is just harder to mess up.

Argo Workflows + Argo Events

Drone, or Tekton, Argo Workflows if you’re on k8s

Check out Argo Workflows.

go-git has a lot of bugs and is not actively maintained. The bug even affects Argo Workflow, which caused our data pipeline to fail unexpectedly (reference: https://github.com/argoproj/argo-workflows/issues/10091)