Skip to content
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

Feature Request: DynamoDB support #45

Open
codefromthecrypt opened this issue Jun 5, 2017 · 8 comments
Open

Feature Request: DynamoDB support #45

codefromthecrypt opened this issue Jun 5, 2017 · 8 comments
Labels
Need Rule of Three Need 3 requests for inclusion

Comments

@codefromthecrypt
Copy link
Member

From @cemo on May 26, 2017 10:59

I would like to see DynamoDB support for zipkin. I usually let AWS services to store data and I deal rest of the services. DynamoDB seems a good and cheap alternative for Zipkin. Is it possible to support it as well?

Copied from original issue: openzipkin/zipkin#1599

@codefromthecrypt
Copy link
Member Author

From @cemo on June 5, 2017 10:20

@adriancole is this attractive only for me? DynamoDB based on storage means less cost and a better scalability. Am I missing something at here? Or Should I open this issue on zipkin-aws?

@devinsba
Copy link
Member

devinsba commented Jun 5, 2017

I might be interested here, we aren't ElasticSearch users elsewhere yet so we don't have a ton of operational knowledge

@dgomesbr
Copy link

dgomesbr commented Jun 6, 2017

@cemo and @adriancole as I know integration directly to dynamodb would be easier and straightforward, we could still address that via lambda consumers to dynamodb, whereas we continue to leverage the initial sqs support, but also gives freedom to consume it as we wanted and even store on S3 for later analytics, dashboarding etc

@codefromthecrypt
Copy link
Member Author

codefromthecrypt commented Jun 6, 2017 via email

@devinsba devinsba added the Need Rule of Three Need 3 requests for inclusion label Dec 6, 2018
@devinsba devinsba mentioned this issue Dec 6, 2018
4 tasks
@jhonatanforero
Copy link

Hi Everyone, Elasticsearch storage It's a expensive service in Aws, this is a good Idea for keep cheap the zipkin infra in the Aws cloud.
@adriancole

@codefromthecrypt
Copy link
Member Author

there was an assumption this would be cheap, but that was contested by one of the users.. that the query side of actually doing this would be not cheap.

The bigger problem is that the effort is a huge amount of code to maintain, and even completing it didn't happen despite heroism: #125

I would suggest that unless someone is willing to pick this up and complete it, other options, like direct storage into X-Ray (without agent even), might be alternatives to consider.

@jhonatanforero
Copy link

Ok , This is the context -->
Today, We have Kinesis -> Ec2 (collector) -> E.S
2 shards of Kinesis Cost 60 USD per Month, E.S cost per GB storage, so this infra is expensive, We are migrating Kinesis, and we want to use SQS.
We want to be Agnostic, so We don't want to use x-ray, We like a lot the zipkin Lens UI, I'm searching for new storage like Cassandra service management in Aws maybe It would be cheaper.
How much can I reduce the cost for zipkin infra in Aws? This is the big question.
If the collector (sqs) was developed in Spring cloud function as Aws Lambda (Java) but where can I install the Zipkin UI?
This a topic for discussion.

@codefromthecrypt
Copy link
Member Author

codefromthecrypt commented Feb 18, 2020 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Need Rule of Three Need 3 requests for inclusion
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants