Alternatives to KrakenD

Hello :) We are using Datadog on Kong to monitor the metrics and analytics.

We feel that the cost associated with Datadog is high in terms of custom metrics and indexations. So, we planned to find an alternative for Datadog and we are looking into Grafana implementation with kong.

Will the shift from Datadog to Grafana be a wise move and flawless?

As for the new support of service mesh pattern by Kong, I wonder how does it compare to Istio?

Our whole DevOps stack consists of the following tools:

• GitHub (incl. GitHub Pages/Markdown for Documentation, GettingStarted and HowTo's) for collaborative review and code management tool
• Respectively Git as revision control system
• SourceTree as Git GUI
• Visual Studio Code as IDE
• CircleCI for continuous integration (automatize development process)
• Prettier / TSLint / ESLint as code linter
• SonarQube as quality gate
• Docker as container management (incl. Docker Compose for multi-container application management)
• VirtualBox for operating system simulation tests
• Kubernetes as cluster management for docker containers
• Heroku for deploying in test environments
• nginx as web server (preferably used as facade server in production environment)
• SSLMate (using OpenSSL) for certificate management
• Amazon EC2 (incl. Amazon S3) for deploying in stage (production-like) and production environments
• PostgreSQL as preferred database system
• Redis as preferred in-memory database/store (great for caching)

The main reason we have chosen Kubernetes over Docker Swarm is related to the following artifacts:

• Key features: Easy and flexible installation, Clear dashboard, Great scaling operations, Monitoring is an integral part, Great load balancing concepts, Monitors the condition and ensures compensation in the event of failure.
• Applications: An application can be deployed using a combination of pods, deployments, and services (or micro-services).
• Functionality: Kubernetes as a complex installation and setup process, but it not as limited as Docker Swarm.
• Monitoring: It supports multiple versions of logging and monitoring when the services are deployed within the cluster (Elasticsearch/Kibana (ELK), Heapster/Grafana, Sysdig cloud integration).
• Scalability: All-in-one framework for distributed systems.
• Other Benefits: Kubernetes is backed by the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF), huge community among container orchestration tools, it is an open source and modular tool that works with any OS.

We chose AWS because, at the time, it was really the only cloud provider to choose from.

We tend to use their basic building blocks (EC2, ELB, Amazon S3, Amazon RDS) rather than vendor specific components like databases and queuing. We deliberately decided to do this to ensure we could provide multi-cloud support or potentially move to another cloud provider if the offering was better for our customers.

We’ve utilized c3.large nodes for both the Node.js deployment and then for the .NET Core deployment. Both sit as backends behind an nginx instance and are managed using scaling groups in Amazon EC2 sitting behind a standard AWS Elastic Load Balancing (ELB).

While we’re satisfied with AWS, we do review our decision each year and have looked at Azure and Google Cloud offerings.

#CloudHosting #WebServers #CloudStorage #LoadBalancerReverseProxy

We switched to Traefik so we can use the REST API to dynamically configure subdomains and have the ability to redirect between multiple servers.

We still use nginx with a docker-compose to expose the traffic from our APIs and TCP microservices, but for managing routing to the internet Traefik does a much better job

The biggest win for naologic was the ability to set dynamic configurations without having to restart the server

We use Traefik as the web server.

The reasons for choosing Traefik over Nginx are as follows:

• Traefik built-in Let’s Encrypt and supports automatic renewal
• Traefik automatically enables HTTP/2
• Prometheus can be supported through simple Traefik configuration
• cookiecutter django integrates Traefik's configuration by default

We just launched the Segment Config API (try it out for yourself here) — a set of public REST APIs that enable you to manage your Segment configuration. Behind the scenes the Config API is built with Go , GRPC and Envoy.

At Segment, we build new services in Go by default. The language is simple so new team members quickly ramp up on a codebase. The tool chain is fast so developers get immediate feedback when they break code, tests or integrations with other systems. The runtime is fast so it performs great at scale.

For the newest round of APIs we adopted the GRPC service #framework.

The Protocol Buffer service definition language makes it easy to design type-safe and consistent APIs, thanks to ecosystem tools like the Google API Design Guide for API standards, uber/prototool for formatting and linting .protos and lyft/protoc-gen-validate for defining field validations, and grpc-gateway for defining REST mapping.

With a well designed .proto, its easy to generate a Go server interface and a TypeScript client, providing type-safe RPC between languages.

For the API gateway and RPC we adopted the Envoy service proxy.

The internet-facing segmentapis.com endpoint is an Envoy front proxy that rate-limits and authenticates every request. It then transcodes a #REST / #JSON request to an upstream GRPC request. The upstream GRPC servers are running an Envoy sidecar configured for Datadog stats.

The result is API #security , #reliability and consistent #observability through Envoy configuration, not code.

We experimented with Swagger service definitions, but the spec is sprawling and the generated clients and server stubs leave a lot to be desired. GRPC and .proto and the Go implementation feels better designed and implemented. Thanks to the GRPC tooling and ecosystem you can generate Swagger from .protos, but it’s effectively impossible to go the other way.

At uSwitch we wanted a way to load balance between our multiple Kubernetes clusters in AWS to give us added redundancy. We already had ingresses defined for all our applications so we wanted to build on top of that, instead of creating a new system that would require our various teams to change code/config etc.

Envoy seemed to tick a lot of boxes:

• Loadbalancing capabilities right out of the box: health checks, circuit breaking, retries etc.
• Tracing and prometheus metrics support
• Lightweight
• Good community support

This was all good but what really sold us was the api that supported dynamic configuration. This would allow us to dynamically configure envoy to route to ingresses and clusters as they were created or destroyed.

To do this we built a tool called Yggdrasil using their Go sdk. Yggdrasil effectively just creates envoy configuration from Kubernetes ingress objects, so you point Yggdrasil at your kube clusters, it generates config from the ingresses and then envoy can loadbalance between your clusters for you. This is all done dynamically so as soon as new ingress is created the envoy nodes get updated with the new config. Importantly this all worked with what we already had, no need to create new config for every application, we just put this on top of it.

Around the time of their Series A, Pinterest’s stack included Python and Django, with Tornado and Node.js as web servers. Memcached / Membase and Redis handled caching, with RabbitMQ handling queueing. Nginx, HAproxy and Varnish managed static-delivery and load-balancing, with persistent data storage handled by MySQL.

Over the past year, we've shifted our philosophy on managed services and have moved several critical parts of our infrastructure away from self-managed options. The most prominent was our shift away from HAProxy to AWS's managed application load balancers (ALBs).

As we scaled, managing our HAProxy fleet became a larger and larger burden. We spent a significant amount of time tuning our configuration files and benchmarking different Amazon EC2 instance types to maximize throughput.

Emerging needs like #DDoS protection and auto scaling turned into large projects that we needed to schedule urgently. Instead of continuing this investment, we chose to shift to managed ALB instances. This was a large project, but it quickly paid for itself as we've nearly eliminated the time spent managing load balancers. We also gained DDoS protection and auto scaling "for free".

At my company, we are trying to move away from a monolith into microservices led architecture. We are now stuck with a problem to establish a communication mechanism between microservices. Since, we are planning to use service meshes and something like Dapr/Istio, we are not sure on how to split services between the two. Service meshes offer Traffic Routing or Splitting whereas, Dapr can offer state management and service-service invocation. At the same time both of them provide mLTS, Metrics, Resiliency and tracing. How to choose who should offer what?

As for the new support of service mesh pattern by Kong, I wonder how does it compare to Istio?