Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
gep: add GEP-3388 HTTP Retry Budget #3488
gep: add GEP-3388 HTTP Retry Budget #3488
Changes from all commits
2241fe5
e27468c
b9df3f4
538bb61
a5eaa93
979c8c9
d7353c8
c18895c
80474d9
04fefd8
39b4b0f
1877e2f
9e01592
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I know you're not proposing a specific policy to include this in yet, but I'd argue this is exactly the kind of thing we had in mind for BackendLBPolicy (cc @gcs278)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have to respectfully disagree with @robscott here: the connection between retries and the "backend load balancer" is pretty tenuous (even in Linkerd where the component that decides which backend gets a given request is called the load balancer 😉).
That does not mean that I think we should have a retry policy and a circuit breaking policy and a timeout policy etc. etc., though. It means that:
a. I remain generally opposed to policy attachment for table-stakes features, and
b. If we have a catchall policy for configuring the way we interact with the backends, let's not call it BackendLBPolicy.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can draft two proposed implementations (one for a new policy resource, another adding to BackendLBPolicy) in a followup PR to avoid blocking this provisional GEP on bikeshedding this now.
I do have some concerns about messaging/supportability if we start glomming several discrete optional features onto a single *Policy CRD - I suppose it's not much worse than what we already have with the core resources, but it's perhaps simpler for implementations to message "SpecificPolicy with X optional fields is supported" than "for BroadPolicy, X feature is supported with Y optional fields, Z feature is supported with Q optional fields, etc" and I think gets more difficult/important to promote subfields to standard channel independently rather than potentially advancing the entire resource at once.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you think it would help sidestep bikeshedding to describe the API simply as a stanza with relevant configuration, then have a separate discussion about where that stanza would be included?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My concern here is that the sheer number of resources involved in using Gateway API is overwhelming for many users (especially new ones). If we keep on with a pattern of creating a unique policy for each topic, this problem is only going to get worse. Some of the most successful Kubernetes APIs are the ones that shoved a ton of concepts into a single resource (Service, Pod, etc). Although these APIs are overloaded, they continue to be remarkably popular.
I think we'll need at least two backend policies - one for TLS config, and one for everything else. If you have any ideas for the name for the "everything else" one, I'd be open to them. I personally think
BackendLBPolicy
is ok, but can be convinced that better names exist.Longer term, I really like the idea @ptrivedi has in #3539 that would add a new backend-focused resource to the API that could replace Service for many Gateway API users. In that proposal, it's called
EndpointSelector
, but the general idea would be to disconnect the "frontend" bits of a Service and instead have a resource exclusively focused on the backend bits. In that world, we could replace backend policies with inline fields. Not saying we should start with that for this specific GEP, but trying to provide a vision for a future that doesn't require all these backend policies.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Opened #3573 to continue API design discussion in a followup (still intending to resolve that by January 30th deadline), hoping we can get this merged as provisional as-is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Related to the above: set aside, for the moment, the idea that policy attachment is the only way to extend Service (maybe we go with endpoint Gateways, maybe we wave our magic wand and have a Service extension point, I dunno, just let's set that aside for the moment). What would you want the budgeted-retry configuration to look like in that world? What are the user stories driving that design?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In a magic world where we have extensible "mix-ins" or similar for core resources, I would envision a retry budget may be configured directly per-Service (or per-Gateway with #3539), but because one of the benefits of budgets is their adaptability as compared against a static count retry config, a user may still want a common policy for an entire namespace or all backends in a cluster (which is not currently in scope for this GEP but could be future extensibility pattern).