raboof commented on issue #417:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pekko-grpc/issues/417#issuecomment-2510929165

   > As mentioned in the link you shared, "_When multiple endpoints are 
discovered for a gRPC client, currently one is selected and used for all 
outgoing calls_".
   
   We should probably add a 'by default' there.
   
   > Ideally we should be able to send requests to both endpoints in a 
`round_robin` fashion. Even if `round_robin` is provided as load balancing 
policy, only one host is receiving requests.
   
   As that documentation mentions, while perhaps counter-intuitive, there are 
situations where that's a better strategy - but I agree it would be good if 
client-side load balancing were possible.
   
   > I see in the docs, "_Client-side load balancing is desirable when you are 
using the default static or the grpc-dns discovery mechanism._".
   
   I suspect we should replace 'desirable' with 'possible' here.
   
   > But the meaning of default static method is not clear to me.
   
   'static' is the discovery method that is used when you don't configure a 
different service discovery mechanism 
(https://pekko.apache.org/docs/pekko-grpc/current/client/configuration.html#using-pekko-discovery-for-endpoint-discovery).
   
   > Can we add some example for this use case?
   
   I agree that would be helpful.
   
   > Even if `round_robin` is provided as load balancing policy, only one host 
is receiving requests.
   
   Indeed that seems to contradict the documentation. Could you boil down your 
application to a minimal test project to show the behavior?


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to