5 ms·
I don't have a lot of experience with it yet, but Loki looks promising for small projects. You'd still use it as a centralized logging server, but it's not as r
by johntash 7y ago
I don't have a lot of experience with it yet, but Loki looks promising for small projects. You'd still use it as a centralized logging server, but it's not as resource-expensive as something like self-hosting ELK.
I've only been using it for my homelab, and haven't even moved everything to it yet - but I like it so far. I already use Grafana+influxdb for metrics so having logs in the same interface is nice.
https://grafana.com/oss/loki/ https://grafana.com/oss/loki/
- tmikaeld 7y agoI've been benching it in production. On a 1core 2gb vps it can do around 1200 logs/sec. Compared to ELK, we're saving several hundred $ per month.
- chucky_z 7y agoIf you can't do 1200 logs/sec with that hardware + elasticsearch, you've done something horrendously wrong. You can do 1200 logs/sec with a container limited to 1 core and 256mb of memory running elasticsearch.
- Xorlev 7y agoReally depends on the size of each log and the complexity of the tokenizers. With 1 core you have time budget of less than a millisecond per log statement for processing and that doesn't include the relevant ES/Lucene operational overheads. This is extremely doable for some workloads, but not others. Really depends on what you're stuffing in.
- tmikaeld 7y agoThe savings are in RAM costs due to ELK stack basically not running under 4GB. And larger logs with stack trace are much slower compared to Loki. There's a reason there is no cheap ELK services.
- atombender 7y agoWe use Loki in production. It's pretty good! There are still some issues with memory usage (particularly the log-cli tool) and query performance, but it's a great start.
- nerdbaggy 7y agoLoki is really hard to scale up