make query-frontend service grpc lb friendly #8025
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
./tools/diff_coverage.sh ../loki-target-branch/test_results.txt test_results.txt ingester,distributor,querier,querier/queryrange,iter,storage,chunkenc,logql,loki Change in test coverage per package. Green indicates 0 or positive change, red indicates that test coverage for a package fell. + ingester 0%
+ distributor 0%
+ querier 0%
+ querier/queryrange 0%
+ iter 0%
+ storage 0%
+ chunkenc 0%
+ logql 0%
+ loki 0% |
kavirajk
approved these changes
Jan 2, 2023
|
Thanks for the review Kavi!
I have added it to the upgrade guide already in the previous PR. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What this PR does / why we need it:
In PR #7966, I made changes to Query Frontend service. Part of it was creating a new service.
To make the service properly load balance grpc requests, we need to use
grpclbServiceFor, but since we do not use grpc in QF, I went with the usual method, i.e. I usedserviceFor. Thinking more about it, I think there is no harm in keeping it grpc LB friendly, and it would save us from any possible bugs if we make QF accept queries via grpc.