Skip to content

Make the max grpc receive message size configurable, in Bigtable client #1138

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 9, 2019

Conversation

gouthamve
Copy link
Contributor

We're hitting this limit and 100 << 20 is the default in the bigtable SDK anyways.

@gouthamve gouthamve requested a review from tomwilkie December 4, 2018 05:30
@tomwilkie
Copy link
Contributor

I feel like we need a "generic" gRPC client config struct to unify the frontend client, the ingester client and the bigtable client with the same options, as we're hitting these problems again and again. WDYT?

@bboreham bboreham changed the title Make the max grpc receive message size configurable Make the max grpc receive message size configurable, in Bigtable client Dec 6, 2018
Copy link
Contributor

@bboreham bboreham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm ok with adding this; also ok with generalising the gRPC options.

@tomwilkie
Copy link
Contributor

generalising the gRPC options.

Going to have a stab at this now.

cfg.GRPCClientConfig.RegisterFlags("ingester.client", f)

// Deprecated.
f.Int("ingester.client.max-recv-message-size", 64*1024*1024, "DEPRECATED. Maximum message size, in bytes, this client will receive.")
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These options don't do anything as of now. Is it not better to fail when these are specified rather than silently not set them at all?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is currently "the way we do things" - we don't want an upgrade to fail because flags changed or went away. I think there is a discussion coming up about what our backwards compatibility guarantees will be, so let not do this now?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the case of the compression options I would have preferred an outright failure.
What is the precedent in Cortex to leave an option doing nothing?

@gouthamve
Copy link
Contributor Author

LGTM from me

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants