Consider usage of chi router as http framework for gateway #80

New issue

Closed

opened 2023-08-31 15:37:46 +00:00 by alexvanin · 1 comment

alexvanin commented

2023-08-31 15:37:46 +00:00

Owner

Back in the days we chose fasthttp as a framework for our first gateway application, because it was blazing fast and provided non-buffered access to the payload, so we could transfer payload directly to the storage node (see the usage of RequestBodyStream).

Unfortunately, we can't use this framework in other gateways. Fasthttp does not provide convenient routing for large-scale S3 gateway and we use swagger-generated server for REST gateway.

Also it has some caveats e.g. a bit weird work with RequestContext without ability to cancel request

Describe the solution you'd like

Not a while ago we supported chi router in the S3 gateway. Let's see if it provides some zero-buf options to work with payload and let's do some benchmarks.

## Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Back in the days we chose [fasthttp](https://github.com/valyala/fasthttp) as a framework for our first gateway application, because it was blazing fast and provided non-buffered access to the payload, so we could transfer payload directly to the storage node (see the usage of [RequestBodyStream](https://git.frostfs.info/TrueCloudLab/frostfs-http-gw/src/commit/dbc6804d273bf6b9df7b8f9a813e20e5c73835eb/uploader/upload.go#L73)). Unfortunately, we can't use this framework in other gateways. Fasthttp does not provide convenient routing for large-scale S3 gateway and we use swagger-generated server for REST gateway. Also it has some caveats e.g. a bit weird work with `RequestContext` without ability to [cancel request](https://github.com/valyala/fasthttp/issues/1473#issuecomment-1396529070) ## Describe the solution you'd like Not a while ago we supported [chi](https://github.com/go-chi/chi) router in the S3 gateway. Let's see if it provides some zero-buf options to work with payload and let's do some benchmarks.

mbiryukova was assigned by alexvanin

2023-08-31 15:37:46 +00:00

mbiryukova commented

2023-10-06 12:55:34 +00:00

Member

To compare effectiveness of implementations with fasthttp and chi router, 2GB, 5GB and 10GB objects were uploaded. No significant difference was noticed.
There is a problem with headers handling: they transform (e.g. X-Attribute-FilePath → X-Attribute-Filepath) which doesn't allow to correctly set case sensitive attributes in object. Also, in implementation with chi router it wasn't possible to apply some of web settings.

To compare effectiveness of implementations with fasthttp and chi router, 2GB, 5GB and 10GB objects were uploaded. No significant difference was noticed. There is a problem with headers handling: they transform (e.g. X-Attribute-FilePath → X-Attribute-Filepath) which doesn't allow to correctly set case sensitive attributes in object. Also, in implementation with chi router it wasn't possible to apply some of web settings.

mbiryukova closed this issue

2023-10-06 12:55:34 +00:00