Springcloud Service Registration Center comparison: Consul vs Zookeeper vs Etcd vs eureka__spring synthesis

Original link Address: http://luyiisme.github.io/2017/04/22/spring-cloud-service-discovery-products/

Here on the usual use of services found in the product to carry out the comparison of characteristics, first of all to see the conclusion:

Feature	Consul	Zookeeper	Etcd	Euerka
Service Health Check	Service status, memory, hard drive, etc.	(weak) long connection, keepalive	Connect Heartbeat	Available support
Multi-Data center	Support	—	—	—
KV Storage Services	Support	Support	Support	—
Consistency	Raft	Paxos	Raft	—
Caps	Ca	Cp	Cp	Ap
Using interfaces (multilingual capabilities)	Support for HTTP and DNS	Client	Http/grpc	HTTP (Sidecar)
Watch support	Full volume/support long polling	Support	Support Long polling	Supports large increments of long polling/
Self monitoring	Metrics	—	Metrics	Metrics
Safety	Acl/https	Cc.	HTTPS Support (weak)	—
Spring Cloud Integration	has supported	has supported	has supported	has supported

Health Checks for services

Euraka need to be explicitly configured for health check support when used, ZOOKEEPER,ETCD is not healthy when the connection to the service process is lost, and consul is relatively more detailed, such as whether the memory has been used for 90% or not, and the file system space is not fast enough. Multi-Data center support

Consul synchronization across the data center through the WAN Gossip protocol, and other products require additional development effort; KV Storage Services

In addition to Eureka, the other several are able to support the K-V storage services, so the following will be mentioned in these products to pursue high consistency of the important reasons. and the provision of storage services, but also can be better transformed into dynamic configuration services Oh. The choice of CAP theory in product design

Eureka typical AP, as the service found under the distributed scenario is more appropriate, service discovery scenarios have a higher availability priority, consistency is not particularly fatal. Second, the CA-type scenario Consul can also provide high availability and K-V store services to ensure consistency. While ZOOKEEPER,ETCD is the CP type sacrificing usability, it doesn't have much advantage in service discovery scenarios; multi-lingual competence and access Protocol for external service delivery

Zookeeper support is weak, and several others support the possibility of http11 providing access. Euraka generally provides access support for multilingual clients in a sidecar manner. ETCD also provides GRPC support. Consul provides DNS support in addition to the standard Rest service APIs. Watch support (client-side observation of service provider changes)

Zookeeper supports server-side push changes, and Eureka 2.0 (in development) also plans to support them. Eureka 1,consul,etcd The perception of change through the way of long polling; monitoring of its own cluster

In addition to zookeeper, the other several are supported by the default metrics, the operational dimension can collect and alarm these metrics information to achieve monitoring purposes; security

Consul,zookeeper supports ACLs, and CONSUL,ETCD supports secure channel HTTPS. Integration of Spring Cloud

At present, there are corresponding boot starter, which provides the integration capability.

Overall, the current consul own function, and spring cloud support for its integration is relatively perfect, and the complexity of the operation is simpler (no detailed discussion), Eureka design more in line with the scene, but still need to continue to improve. Copyright Notice

First posted on this, reprint please keep the above link