Page Comparison

...

1. Increased Sidecar Complexity: By integrating route discovery and caching functionalities into the Sidecar, the component becomes more complex to develop, maintain, and debug. This increased complexity could lead to longer development cycles and more potential bugs.

2. Higher Memory and Resource Usage: The Sidecar now stores route information in a cache, potentially increasing its memory footprint. For systems with many routes, this could require more memory and CPU resources to manage effectively.

3. Potential Cache Staleness: While the cache has an expiration policy, there is still a risk that the route information could become outdated before the cache refreshes. This could lead to routing errors until the cache is updated.

4. Lack of Centralized Route Management: Since each Sidecar now independently handles route discovery, ensuring consistency across different instances of Sidecars could be more challenging, especially in multi-tenant environments.

5. Greater Dependency on Sidecar Robustness: The Sidecar becomes a critical point of failure. If a Sidecar encounters an issue, routing could be disrupted for that particular service, affecting its ability to process requests effectively.

6. Potential Latency from Cache Expiration: When the cache expires, the Sidecar needs to query external modules to refresh routing information. This could introduce additional latency during cache refreshes, particularly in high-traffic deployments.

Conclusion

During several rounds of discussion, option 3.4 was selected because it best suits the requirements. We’d like to consolidate the mechanisms used by the sidecars to obtain discovery information.

Spike Status: