4 ms·
Yep, I push about 50-100MB/s through a single instance of Logstash (Redis (list) -> S3). That configuration is not in the benchmark table, but surely it's more
by leetbulb 7y ago
Yep, I push about 50-100MB/s through a single instance of Logstash (Redis (list) -> S3). That configuration is not in the benchmark table, but surely it's more demanding than TCP -> Blackhole, TCP -> TCP, etc.
Regardless, Vector looks very nice and I'll be testing it out :)
- the_duke 7y agoThey are using the default config with 1GB memory. Sadly that's absolutely nothing for Logstash. Reported an issue in their test harness.
- leetbulb 7y agoI just checked mine and it's running with -Xms1g -Xmx1g and humming away with no problem. I wonder if it's something else?
- otterley 7y agoIMO that's totally fair -- 1GB is more than adequate to run a log forwarder. The fact that Logstash can't perform well under such conditions is worthy of consideration when selecting a solution.
- the_duke 7y agoIt's perfectly valid to mention the higher memory requirements as a considerable drawback. But this is far from the possible performance that Logstash offers, so the comparison is at least misleading. Also, there is no information about the memory usage of the other contestants, which probably don't have memory limits if they don't run on the JVM. I say all this as someone who stopped using Logstash, in part due to the high requirements - but benchmarks should strive for a fair comparison.