Re: Loggregator feedback

Jim CF Campbell

Hi Carlo,

Thanks for the follow up!

As mentioned there is a work around for the Java multi line issue. Here is
the link to our readme

For Ruby, I'm afraid I don't have a good answer. I like your suggestion,
but it's complicated by the fact that there is no "end of multi-line"
signal. We would need a timer to know when to declare the log message done
so we could package and send it out of the Diego cell. That's a pattern
we've tried to avoid.

As far as the monotonically-increasing counter, we've had that suggestion
before. There have been some implementation challenges but I'm going to
muse a bit more and talk to the team. For now the timestamp allows ordering.

For lossiness, thanks for the Kafka suggestion, and I'd be very interested
in any prototype you build. Our strategy is listed in this Feature

Thanks so much for your input!

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Ferraris, Carlo | Carlo | OPS <
carlo.ferraris(a)> wrote:

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to talk doing the summit!

As promised, here is a brief recap of those two pieces of feedback I
shared, plus one additional note that we came up with later on:

- Multiline logs
- This is something that we frequently hear from our users. Not
supporting multiline might be annoying but still bearable as long as the
ordering of the lines was guaranteed to be consistent; unfortunately it’s
not. That basically makes any stack trace printed to the logs useless.
- During the talk you mentioned that a workaround exists for
Java-log4j (unfortunately the majority of our apps are in ruby) and that
you’re considering a “permanent workaround”. For this I’d just add a
suggestion: it looks like most stack traces follow the convention that
lines after the first are indented… maybe this could be turned into a
formal convention?
- Losing logs
- While we’d like to minimise/remove the possibility of losing logs
(and see below for a note about this) it is much more important for us to
know whether or not we are losing logs, and if so which ones.
- During our talk I mentioned that a potential solution would be to
have all producers add a per-producer monotonically-increasing counter to
each message. This would allow to unequivocably sort the messages in the
correct order, know how many messages we’re losing for each producer and
which position they were in within the stream.
- (not) losing logs
- You mentioned that reliable deliver is very often requested, and
I heard from Gwenn that during the office hours there were many requests
for this.
- Talking with my colleagues we came up with an observation that I
think could be worth sharing. If you squint hard enough, doppler-etcd is
the non-persistent, leaky equivalent of kafka-zookeeper. The only
CF-specific part of doppler is the dropsonde protocol. We’ll explore if it
is possible to have a kafka producer disguised as doppler, but it would
also be interesting (and arguably better) if metron (and tc?) could be
fitted with the ability to talk to different kinds of brokers. This would
allow to have a single leaky component (metron) while the rest of the
pipeline can benefit from the delivery guarantees of Kafka.

I hope what I wrote makes sense, in case it doesn’t I’ll try to clarify.
Thanks for the awesome work on your part!

Carlo Alberto

Jim Campbell | Product Manager | Cloud Foundry | | 303.618.0963

Join to automatically receive all group messages.