opentelemetry-demo VS gRPC

Here is a typical trace from the OpenTelemetry demo project.

# test suite based on https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-demo/tree/main/test/tracetesting/frontend-service type: Test spec: id: frontend-view-cart name: 'Frontend: View cart' description: Simulate a user viewing the shopping cart trigger: type: http httpRequest: url: http://${var:FRONTEND_ADDR}/api/cart?userId=2491f868-88f1-4345-8836-d5d8511a9f83 method: GET headers: - key: Content-Type value: application/json specs: - name: It called the frontend with success selector: span[tracetest.span.type="general" name="Tracetest trigger"] assertions: - attr:tracetest.response.status = 200 - name: It retrieved the cart items correctly selector: span[name="oteldemo.CartService/GetCart"] assertions: - attr:rpc.grpc.status_code = 0

Contributing to the OpenTelemetry Demo is a great way to get involved and showcase your skills in the OpenTelemetry community. It's a real-world example of OpenTelemetry in action, and by actively contributing, you enhance your understanding and improve the project's quality.

Trace-based testing added to OpenTelemetry Demo

Examples and the tutorial in this blog post use the OpenTelemetry Astronomy Shop Demo to show what you can do with OpenTelemetry and New Relic. This application is built and maintained by the OpenTelemetry open-source community, and it provides a real-world example of a distributed application that’s been instrumented with OpenTelemetry. In the Deploying the OpenTelemetry Astronomy Shop demo app section, you’ll have an opportunity to get hands-on experience spinning up your own version of this application. You’ll learn how to:

Take this https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-demo

I mean, you really just need experience instrumenting apps and tinkering with them to play with OTEL. https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-demo is a good start. You can modify the collector to point to any backend of your choice.

I got to play around with these newer features last December, after a months-long hiatus, and it was really cool to see the evolution of the product. If you follow my work, you’ll know that I play in both the Kubernetes and Nomad worlds. Today, I’ll be taking you on a quick little guided tour of Tracetest, using Traces from the OpenTelemetry Demo App to give you a feel for how it works. The whole setup will be running on HashiCorp Nomad. \

​ By having an observability infrastructure gather information about a set of API/microservices, we can have a concise view of the operation of these services and start thinking in an observability-driven way to test your software. ​ Tracetest can help. When given an API endpoint, Tracetest checks observability traces to see if this API is behaving as intended. ​ For example, let’s try to test an OpenTelemetry Astronomy Store which has the exact same use cases that we want to check. ​ To test the "Add product to the shopping cart" task, we can create a test, define a URL and payload in the trigger section that we send to the Cart API and use the specs to define our assertions, checking if the API was called with the correct Product ID and if this product was persisted correctly. ​

In my latest Nomadification Project (TM), I got the OpenTelemetry Demo App to run on Nomad (with HashiQube, of course). To do this, I used the OpenTelemetry Demo App Helm Chart as my guide. In doing this, and other Nomadifications, I realized that I’ve never gone through the process of explaining the conversion process from Kubernetes manifests to Nomad jobspecs.

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