Consul vs Eureka

[phil...@gmail.com]

I'd love to see a "Consul vs Eureka" comparison in the "Consul vs Other Software" section of the website.  (https://www.consul.io/intro/vs/index.html).

In particular, I'd like to hear Consul's take on choosing a CP system rather than an AP system such as Eureka, and how failure modes of each compare.

Phil

[Armon Dadgar]

Phil,

Could you please file a ticket? We can hopefully get this done in more detail, but in gist:

Eureka:

- AP (weak consistency), state is replicated with “best effort”

- Services are registered with one server, which attempts to replicate to other servers

- Service registrations have a TTL, and clients must heartbeat

- Reads are routed to any server, can be stale or missing data

- Scales well due to low coordination, especially when server failures relatively rare

- Fails if all servers down

Consul

- CP (strong consistency), state is replicated using Raft

- Services registered with any server, but written via Raft to a quorum

- Registrations have complex health checks, including gossip failure detection instead of heartbeating

- Reads routed to any server, consistent by default but stale reads can be requested

- Stale reads scale well, Consistent reads scale to tens of thousands per second

- Consistency offers locking and cluster coordination

- Lots more features (health checking, locking, KV, federation, ACLs)

- Fails if a majority of servers down

Hope that helps!

Best Regards,

Armon Dadgar

--
This mailing list is governed under the HashiCorp Community Guidelines - https://www.hashicorp.com/community-guidelines.html. Behavior in violation of those guidelines may result in your removal from this mailing list.
 
GitHub Issues: https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/issues
IRC: #consul on Freenode
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consul" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to consul-tool...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/consul-tool/9b0860d8-3fdc-422a-b17c-e9b886a60056%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[phil...@gmail.com]

Thanks Armon!

I created https://github.com/hashicorp/consul/issues/1295

On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 5:28:11 PM UTC-7, Armon Dadgar wrote:

Phil,

Could you please file a ticket? We can hopefully get this done in more detail, but in gist:

Eureka:

- AP (weak consistency), state is replicated with “best effort”

- Services are registered with one server, which attempts to replicate to other servers

- Service registrations have a TTL, and clients must heartbeat

- Reads are routed to any server, can be stale or missing data

- Scales well due to low coordination, especially when server failures relatively rare

- Fails if all servers down

Consul

- CP (strong consistency), state is replicated using Raft

- Services registered with any server, but written via Raft to a quorum

- Registrations have complex health checks, including gossip failure detection instead of heartbeating

- Reads routed to any server, consistent by default but stale reads can be requested

- Stale reads scale well, Consistent reads scale to tens of thousands per second

- Consistency offers locking and cluster coordination

- Lots more features (health checking, locking, KV, federation, ACLs)

- Fails if a majority of servers down

Hope that helps!

Best Regards,

Armon Dadgar