Live data from Hacker News

Transfering Files with gRPC

kreya.app

21–23 of 23 posts

Re: Transfering Files with gRPC

#21

I have PTSD from Google Protobufs. Sometimes the cost of a less-efficient protocol or traditional REST is worth it over an overengineered solution. Protobufs can be fine, but it's largely overkill. Debugging with protobuf was the price we paid for an "efficient" protocol

[deleted]

Re: Transfering Files with gRPC

#22

And then a C programmer comes in and slams sendfile. That’s the main advantage of HTTP/1.1. Of course TLS throws a wrench in it, but once kTLS is actually good (ahem), it’ll work. In all seriousness, don’t do large file transfers over gRPC, except in a pinch for small files. As soon as e.g API gateways are introduced in the mix, stuff can go south very quickly: increased allocation, GC pressure, network usage, etc. J…

S3 also gives you multipart parallel uploads. Each part gets stored and then when you're done the concatenation is performed close to the storage layer.

Re: Transfering Files with gRPC

#23

And then a C programmer comes in and slams sendfile. That’s the main advantage of HTTP/1.1. Of course TLS throws a wrench in it, but once kTLS is actually good (ahem), it’ll work. In all seriousness, don’t do large file transfers over gRPC, except in a pinch for small files. As soon as e.g API gateways are introduced in the mix, stuff can go south very quickly: increased allocation, GC pressure, network usage, etc. J…

S3 also gives you multipart parallel uploads. Each part gets stored and then when you're done the concatenation is performed close to the storage layer.

Indeed. So many wheels in HTTP/1.1 that needs to be reinvented with gRPC.
Post reply on HN