4 ms·
They say that without aggregation scale-out is impossible. That's simply not true. Using things like anycast and ECMP it's super easy as log destinations are us
by bluecmd 10y ago
They say that without aggregation scale-out is impossible. That's simply not true. Using things like anycast and ECMP it's super easy as log destinations are usually stateless.
Also, never had network contention because I logged too much unless something was really broken - and then only at that node.
I'll continue sending events to my anycast address without any aggregation thank you very much.
- sagichmal 10y ago> They say that without aggregation scale-out is > impossible. That's simply not true. Using things like > anycast and ECMP it's super easy . . . Then you haven't worked at significant scale. That's fine! Just keep everything in context :)
- bluecmd 10y agoA "probably" there would be nice. I don't want to have to defend myself, but I'm pretty confident about the scale I've worked on. I guess it boils down to what you call aggregation. Is having multiple stateless receivers behind anycast/ECMP aggregation writing to a distributed database aggregation? I'd argue not, but maybe this is where the difference in opinion lies.