8 ms·

Loki by Grafana Labs is nice (https://grafana.com/oss/loki/ https://grafana.com/oss/loki/). There was a time (3+ years ago) where the product was changing prett

by tdubey 2y ago

Loki by Grafana Labs is nice (https://grafana.com/oss/loki/ https://grafana.com/oss/loki/). There was a time (3+ years ago) where the product was changing pretty rapidly and much of the documentation was on git, so we had a few headaches doing minor version bumps, but I believe its much more mature now.

ed_mercer 2y ago
Just don’t look at the list of open issues and the lack of responses.
mcpeepants 2y ago
Loki is significantly different in several ways, including the lack of full-text indexing.
valyala 2y ago
Loki has the following problems: - It is non-trivial to setup and operate. It requires properly configuring and orchestrating numerous components - distributor, ingestor, querier, query frontend, compactor, consul, ruler, memcache, index service, etc. - see https://grafana.com/docs/loki/latest/get-started/architecture/ https://grafana.com/docs/loki/latest/get-started/architectur... - Its' configs tend to break with every new release, since some configs become obsolete and some configs change names and/or structure. - It is very slow on "needle in the haystack" queries such as "search for logs containing some rarely seen trace_id", since it needs to read, unpack and scan all the logs at object storage. This may be also very expensive if the object storage service charges for read IO. - It doesn't support log fields with big number of unique values (aka high-cardinality log fields). It you'll try storing logs with high-cardinality fields into Loki, then it will quickly explode with enormous RAM usage. Recent Loki releases provide half-baked solution for this problem - "structured metadata" ( https://grafana.com/docs/loki/latest/get-started/labels/structured-metadata/ https://grafana.com/docs/loki/latest/get-started/labels/stru... ), but it is still experimental and requires non-trivial configs (aka it doesn't work).

by tdubey 2y ago

ed_mercer 2y ago

Just don’t look at the list of open issues and the lack of responses.

mcpeepants 2y ago

Loki is significantly different in several ways, including the lack of full-text indexing.

valyala 2y ago

Loki has the following problems: - It is non-trivial to setup and operate. It requires properly configuring and orchestrating numerous components - distributor, ingestor, querier, query frontend, compactor, consul, ruler, memcache, index service, etc. - see https://grafana.com/docs/loki/latest/get-started/architecture/ https://grafana.com/docs/loki/latest/get-started/architectur... - Its' configs tend to break with every new release, since some configs become obsolete and some configs change names and/or structure. - It is very slow on "needle in the haystack" queries such as "search for logs containing some rarely seen trace_id", since it needs to read, unpack and scan all the logs at object storage. This may be also very expensive if the object storage service charges for read IO. - It doesn't support log fields with big number of unique values (aka high-cardinality log fields). It you'll try storing logs with high-cardinality fields into Loki, then it will quickly explode with enormous RAM usage. Recent Loki releases provide half-baked solution for this problem - "structured metadata" ( https://grafana.com/docs/loki/latest/get-started/labels/structured-metadata/ https://grafana.com/docs/loki/latest/get-started/labels/stru... ), but it is still experimental and requires non-trivial configs (aka it doesn't work).