luigi VS gRPC

I agree there are many options in this space. Two others to consider:

- https://airflow.apache.org/

- https://github.com/spotify/luigi

There are also many Kubernetes based options out there. For the specific use case you specified, you might even consider a plain old Makefile and incrond if you expect these all to run on a single host and be triggered by a new file showing up in a directory…

Maybe if your use case is “smallish” and doesn’t require the whole studio suite you could check out apscheduler for doing python “tasks” on a schedule and luigi to build pipelines.

What are you trying to do? Distributed scheduler with a single instance? No database? Are you sure you don't just mean "a scheduler" ala Luigi? https://github.com/spotify/luigi

It's good to know what Airflow is not the only one on the market. There are Dagster and Spotify Luigi and others. But they have different pros and cons, be sure that you did a good investigation on the market to choose the best suitable tool for your tasks.

MLOps is a HUGE area to explore, and not surprisingly, there are many startups showing up in this space. If you want to get it on the latest trends, then I would look at workflow orchestration frameworks such as Metaflow (started off at Netflix, is now spinning off into its own enterprise business, https://metaflow.org/), Kubeflow (used at Google, https://www.kubeflow.org/), Airflow (used at Airbnb, https://airflow.apache.org/), and Luigi (used at Spotify, https://github.com/spotify/luigi). Then you have the model serving itself, so there is Seldon (https://www.seldon.io/), Torchserve (https://pytorch.org/serve/), and TensorFlow Serving (https://www.tensorflow.org/tfx/guide/serving). You also have the actual export and transfer of DL models, and ONNX is the most popular here (https://onnx.ai/). Spark (https://spark.apache.org/) still holds up nicely after all these years, especially if you are doing batch predictions on massive amount of data. There is also the GitFlow way of doing things and Data Version Control (DVC, https://dvc.org/) is taken a pole position there.

At Wonderflow we're doing a lot of ML / NLP using Python and recently we are enjoying writing data pipelines using Spotify's Luigi.

💡【About Luigi】 https://github.com/spotify/luigi Luigi was built at Spotify since 2012, it's open source and mainly used for getting data insights by showing recommendations, toplists, A/B test analysis, external reports, internal dashboards, etc.

So to sum that up, I went from having nothing for my side-project set up in AWS to having a Kubernetes cluster with the basic metrics and dashboard, a proper IAM-linked ServiceAccount support for a smooth IAM experience in K8s, and Luigi deployed so that I could then run a Luigi workflow using an ad-hoc run of a CronJob. That's quite remarkable to me. All that took hours to figure out and define when I first did it, over six months ago.

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