Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@chayn1k

chayn1k/comparison.md

Forked from kchida/gist:d1c15f3968f4f8272c49
Last active September 8, 2018 23:27
Show Gist options
  • Save chayn1k/755e83af6612efc71b3dbbe764f3524a to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save chayn1k/755e83af6612efc71b3dbbe764f3524a to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
etcd vs consul vs ???
Raw
comparison.md

  • What do Etcd, Consul, and Zookeeper do?

    • Service Registration:
      • Host, port number, and sometimes authentication credentials, protocols, versions numbers, and/or environment details.
    • Service Discovery:
      • Ability for client application to query the central registry to learn of service location.
    • Consistent and durable general-purpose K/V store across distributed system.
      • Some solutions support this better than others.
      • Based on Paxos or some derivative (i.e. Raft) algorithm to quickly converge to a consistent state.
      • Centralized locking can be based on this K/V store.
    • Leader Election:
      • Not to be confused with leader election within the quorum of Etcd/Consul nodes. This is an implementation detail that is transparent to the user. What we are talking about here is leader election among the services that are registered against Etcd/Consul.
      • Etcd tabled their leader election module until the API stabilizes.
    • Other non-standard use cases:
      • Distributed locking
      • Atomic broadcast
      • Sequence numbers
      • Pointers to data in eventually consistent stores.

  • How do they behave in a distributed system?

    • All of the solutions under consideration are primarily CP systems in the CAP context. That is, they favor consistency over availability. This means that all nodes have a consistent view of written data but at the expense of availability in the event that a network partitions occurs (i.e. loss of node).
      • Some of these solutions will support "stale reads" in the event of node loss.
    • Each solution can work with only one node. It is generally advised that we have one etcd/ consul per VM/physical host. We do not want to have an etcd/consul per container!

  • Immediate problems that we are trying to solve:

    • Get and set dynamic configuration across a distributed system (e.g. things in moc.config.json):
      • This is perhaps the most pressing problem that we need to solve.
      • An SCM tool like Puppet/Anisble are great for managing static configurations but they are too heavy for dynamic changes.
    • Service registration:
      • We need to be able to spin up a track and have services make themselves visible via DNS.
      • This would be useful primarily outside of production where we would want to regularly spin up and destroy tracks.
      • That said, we don't have a highly-distributed and elastic architecture so we could get by without this for a while.
    • Service discovery:
      • Services must be able to determine which host to talk to for a particular service.
      • This may not be as important for production if we have a loadbalancer. In fact, a loadbalancer would be more transparent to our existing apps as they work at the IP level.
      • That said, we don't have a highly-distributed and elastic architecture so we could get by without this for a while.

  • Features that we don't need for now:

    • Leader election. Many of our apps are currently not designed to scale horizontally. However, it should be noted that Consul has the ability to select a leader based on health checks.

  • Problems that these tools are not designed to solve:

    • Load-balancing.

  • Things that I've explored:

    • Etcd:

      • Basic info:
        • Service registration relies on using a key TTL along with heartbeating from the service to ensure the key remains available. If a services fails to update the key’s TTL, Etcd will expire it. If a service becomes unavailable, clients will need to handle the connection failure and try another service instance.
        • There would be a compelling reason to favor Etcd if we ever planned to use CoreOS but I don't see this happening anytime soon.
      • Pros:
        • Service discovery involves listing the keys under a directory and then waiting for changes on the directory. Since the API is HTTP based, the client application keeps a long-polling connection open with the Etcd cluster.
        • Has been around for longer than Consul. 150% more github watches/stars.
        • 3 times as many contributors (i.e. more eyes) and forks on github.
      • Cons:
        • There are claims that the Raft implementation used by Etcd (go-raft) is not quite right (unverified).
        • Immature, but by the time its use is under consideration in production, it should have reached 1.0.
        • Serving DNS records from Etcd may require a separate service/process (verify):

    • Consul:

      • Pros:
        • Has more high-level features like service monitoring.
        • There is another project out of Hashicorp that will read/set environment variable for processes from Consul.
        • Better documentation.
          • I had an easier time installing and configuring this over Etcd, not that Etcd was particularly hard. Docs make all the difference.
          • Stuff like this makes me want to shed a tear. I commend the KIDS at Hashicorp.
        • You can make DSN queries directly against Consul agent! Nice! No need for SkyDNS or Helix
        • We can add arbitrary checks! Nice, if we are into that sort of thing.
        • Understands the notion of a datacenter. Each cluster is confined to datacenter but the cluster is able to communicate with other datacenters/clusters.
          • At Skybox, we might use this feature to separate docker tracks, even if they live on same host.
        • It has a rudimentary web UI:
      • Cons:
        • There are claims that Consul's implementation of Raft is better (unverified).
        • Immature. Even younger than Etcd (though there are no reason to believe that there are problems with it).

  • Etcd and Consul similarities:

    • HTTP+JSON based API. Curl-able.
    • Docker containers can talk directly with Etcd/Consul over the docker0 interface (i.e. default gateway).
    • Atomic look-before-you-set:
      • Etcd: Compare-and-set by both value and version index.
      • Consul: Check-and-set by sequence number (ModifyIndex)
    • DNS TTLs can be set to something VERY low.
      • Etcd: supports TTL (time-to-live) on both keys and directories, which will be honoured: if a value has existed beyond its TTL
      • Consul: By default, serves all DNS results with a 0 TTL value
    • Has been tested with Jepsen (tool to simulate network partitions in distributed databases).
    • Both work with Confd by Kelsey Hightower.
    • Long polling for changes:
      • Etcd: Easily listen for changes to a prefix via HTTP long-polling.
      • Consul: A blocking query against some endpoints will wait for a change to potentially take place using long polling.

  • Things that I have not explored:

    • SkyDNS: Anyone have good input on this one?
    • Zookeeper: It seems mature but it would take a lot more work to make it work for us.
      • We would be have to configure and use it without high-level features.
      • Provides only a primitive K/V store.
      • Requires that application developers build their own system to provide service discovery.
      • Java dependency (and Dan Streit hates Java)
      • All clients must maintain active connections to the ZooKeeper servers, and perform keep-alives.
      • Zookeeper not recommended for virtual environments? Why? I just read this somewhere.
    • Corosync/Pacemaker (not sure if this is a viable solution, actually)
    • Redis is not viable! It is an in-memory K/V that does not persist data. Nope.
    • Smartstack + Synapse + Nerve from AirBnB (not viable as it only does TCP through HAproxy).
      • Ruby dependencies and many moving parts.

References:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment