keptn VS gRPC

One of the other places I spent a lot of time at at KubeCon NA was the CNCF Project Pavillion. I was very happy to see that it was a bit larger than the area we had during KubeCon EU, but I still wish that it was bigger and wasn’t so tucked away in the corner. A number of booths were showcasing their projects with demos through the week, hosted Q&A time, and gave away swag. If you are still trying to understand the Cloud Native Ecosystem, you can look at this very extensive map of the landscape and projects under the CNCF, some of which are more advanced than others. Of course I’m biased, but I’m really excited for the work that Keptn is doing in helping developers have more control over their application lifecycle. I’m also very excited to see where Backstage goes and how other CNCF projects can integrate with their service catalog.

I can’t speak from experience, but I think Keptn might be worth looking into: https://keptn.sh/

Go try this out and share your feedback on what you like about this integration and what you’d like improved. Feel free to create issues, engage in discussions on the Keptn Slack and Litmus Github repository. Stay tuned for more updates on how you can leverage Keptn & LitmusChaos CNCF projects to build and ship resilient cloud-native applications!

If you want, you can also manually download the binary file from Github and install the CLI by moving it into your path.

gRPC, built on HTTP/2, inherently supports flow control. The server can push updates, but it must also respect flow control signals from the client, ensuring that it doesn't send data faster than what the client can handle.

Yes, grpc_cli tool uses essentially the same mechanism except implemented as a grpc service rather than as a stubby service. The basic principle of both is implementing the C++ proto library's DescriptorDatabase interface with cached recursive queries of (usually) the server's compiled in FileDescriptorProtos.

See also https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/doc/server-reflecti...

The primary difference between what grpc does and what stubby does is that grpc uses a stream to ensure that the reflection requests all go to the same server to avoid incompatible version skew and duplicate proto transmissions. With that said, in practice version skew is rarely a problem for grpc_cli style "issue a single RPC" usecases: even if requests do go to two or more different versions of a binary that might have incompatible proto graphs, it is very common for the request and response and RPC to all be in the same proto file so you only need to make one RPC in the first place unless you're using an extension mechanism like proto2 extensions or google.protobuf.Any.

While gRPC and Apache Thrift have served the microservice architecture well, CloudWeGo's advanced features and performance metrics set it apart as a promising open source solution for the future.

The loadBalancingConfig is what we use in order to decide which policy to go for (round_robin in this case). This JSON representation is based on a protobuf message, then why does the name resolver returns it in the JSON format? The main reason is that loadBalancingConfig is a oneof field inside the proto message and so it can not contain values unknown to the gRPC if used in the proto format. The JSON representation does not have this requirement so we can use a custom loadBalancingConfig .

The Dart implementation of gRPC which puts mobile and HTTP/2 first. It's built and maintained by the Dart team. gRPC is a high-performance RPC (remote procedure call) framework that is optimized for efficient data transfer.

gRPC is a high-performance, open-source RPC (Remote Procedure Call) framework initially developed by Google. It uses Protocol Buffers for serialization and supports bidirectional streaming.

In general, tunneling through HTTP2 turns out to be a great choice. There is a RPC protocol built on top of HTTP2: gRPC[1].

This is because HTTP2 is great at exploiting a TCP connection to transmit and receive multiple data structures concurrently - multiplexing.

There may not be a reason to use HTTP3 however, as QUIC already provides multiplexing.

I expect that in the future most communications will be over encrypted HTTP2 and QUIC simply because middleware creators can not resist to discriminate.

[1] <https://grpc.io>

Even in the https://grpc.io blog says this

gRPC