etcd vs zetcd

Overview

etcd

Stacks308

Followers412

Votes24

zetcd

Stacks0

Followers8

Votes0

etcd vs zetcd: What are the differences?

Introduction

When comparing etcd and zetcd, it is important to understand the key differences between these two technologies that are commonly used for distributed key-value store purposes.

Storage Engine Implementation: One significant difference between etcd and zetcd is the storage engine implementation. Etcd utilizes a custom-built storage engine based on the Raft consensus algorithm, providing strong consistency guarantees. On the other hand, zetcd is designed to act as a proxy to ZooKeeper service, translating its API calls to etcd, which uses its storage engine.
Compatibility with ZooKeeper: Another crucial difference lies in compatibility with ZooKeeper clients. Etcd is not fully compatible with ZooKeeper clients due to differences in API protocols, while zetcd aims to bridge this gap by allowing ZooKeeper applications to seamlessly interact with etcd using the ZooKeeper API.
Performance and Scalability: In terms of performance and scalability, etcd is optimized for speed and can handle a high volume of read and write operations efficiently. Conversely, zetcd may introduce additional latency compared to direct etcd interactions due to the translation process between ZooKeeper API calls and etcd operations.
Development and Maintenance: Etcd is actively developed and maintained by the open-source community, with regular updates and improvements. In contrast, zetcd is a more specialized project focused on providing compatibility with ZooKeeper, which may translate to a slower development pace and fewer features compared to etcd.
Overhead and Resource Consumption: Due to its proxy nature, zetcd may introduce additional overhead and resource consumption compared to etcd, which operates directly on its storage engine. This overhead can impact the overall performance and scalability of applications utilizing zetcd for compatibility with ZooKeeper.
Community Support and Documentation: Etcd benefits from a robust community support system and comprehensive documentation, making it easier for users to troubleshoot issues, seek help, and access resources. On the other hand, zetcd may have a smaller user base and less extensive documentation, leading to potential challenges in adopting and troubleshooting the technology.

In Summary, etcd and zetcd differ in their storage engine implementation, compatibility with ZooKeeper clients, performance, development focus, resource consumption, and community support.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

etcd	zetcd
etcd is a distributed key value store that provides a reliable way to store data across a cluster of machines. It’s open-source and available on GitHub. etcd gracefully handles master elections during network partitions and will tolerate machine failure, including the master.	A ZooKeeper "personality" for etcd. Point a ZooKeeper client at zetcd to dispatch the operations on an etcd cluster. Protocol encoding and decoding heavily based on go-zookeeper.
Statistics
Stacks 308	Stacks 0
Followers 412	Followers 8
Votes 24	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 11 Service discovery 6 Fault tolerant key value store 2 Secure 2 Bundled with coreos 1 Consol integration	No community feedback yet
Integrations
No integrations available	Zookeeper

What are some alternatives to etcd, zetcd?

Consul

Consul is a tool for service discovery and configuration. Consul is distributed, highly available, and extremely scalable.

Eureka

Eureka is a REST (Representational State Transfer) based service that is primarily used in the AWS cloud for locating services for the purpose of load balancing and failover of middle-tier servers.

Zookeeper

A centralized service for maintaining configuration information, naming, providing distributed synchronization, and providing group services. All of these kinds of services are used in some form or another by distributed applications.

Keepalived

The main goal of this project is to provide simple and robust facilities for loadbalancing and high-availability to Linux system and Linux based infrastructures.

SkyDNS

SkyDNS is a distributed service for announcement and discovery of services. It leverages Raft for high-availability and consensus, and utilizes DNS queries to discover available services. This is done by leveraging SRV records in DNS, with special meaning given to subdomains, priorities and weights (more info here: http://blog.gopheracademy.com/skydns).

SmartStack

Scaling a web infrastructure requires services, and building a service-oriented infrastructure is hard. Make it EASY, with SmartStack’s automated, transparent service discovery and registration: cruise control for your distributed infrastructure.

Serf

Serf is a service discovery and orchestration tool that is decentralized, highly available, and fault tolerant. Serf runs on every major platform: Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows. It is extremely lightweight: it uses 5 to 10 MB of resident memory and primarily communicates using infrequent UDP messages.

Nacos

It is an easy-to-use dynamic service discovery, configuration and service management platform for building cloud native applications.

Libraries.io

It is an open source web service that lists software development project dependencies and alerts developers to new versions of the software libraries they are using.

ODD Platform

It is a next-generation data discovery and observability tool for enterprises and startups that help to efficiently democratize data, powers collaboration of data science and data engineering teams, significantly reduces time to data discovery, cuts on data downtime and offers a modern, easy-to-use environment with quick time-to-value. It makes all your data entities reliable, observable, and easily discoverable.

Related Comparisons

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana

etcd vs zetcd: What are the differences?

Introduction

When comparing etcd and zetcd, it is important to understand the key differences between these two technologies that are commonly used for distributed key-value store purposes.

Storage Engine Implementation: One significant difference between etcd and zetcd is the storage engine implementation. Etcd utilizes a custom-built storage engine based on the Raft consensus algorithm, providing strong consistency guarantees. On the other hand, zetcd is designed to act as a proxy to ZooKeeper service, translating its API calls to etcd, which uses its storage engine.
Compatibility with ZooKeeper: Another crucial difference lies in compatibility with ZooKeeper clients. Etcd is not fully compatible with ZooKeeper clients due to differences in API protocols, while zetcd aims to bridge this gap by allowing ZooKeeper applications to seamlessly interact with etcd using the ZooKeeper API.
Performance and Scalability: In terms of performance and scalability, etcd is optimized for speed and can handle a high volume of read and write operations efficiently. Conversely, zetcd may introduce additional latency compared to direct etcd interactions due to the translation process between ZooKeeper API calls and etcd operations.
Development and Maintenance: Etcd is actively developed and maintained by the open-source community, with regular updates and improvements. In contrast, zetcd is a more specialized project focused on providing compatibility with ZooKeeper, which may translate to a slower development pace and fewer features compared to etcd.
Overhead and Resource Consumption: Due to its proxy nature, zetcd may introduce additional overhead and resource consumption compared to etcd, which operates directly on its storage engine. This overhead can impact the overall performance and scalability of applications utilizing zetcd for compatibility with ZooKeeper.
Community Support and Documentation: Etcd benefits from a robust community support system and comprehensive documentation, making it easier for users to troubleshoot issues, seek help, and access resources. On the other hand, zetcd may have a smaller user base and less extensive documentation, leading to potential challenges in adopting and troubleshooting the technology.

In Summary, etcd and zetcd differ in their storage engine implementation, compatibility with ZooKeeper clients, performance, development focus, resource consumption, and community support.