4 ms·
Yes there is performance cost, but removing logs removes your ability to solve problems that happened in production. At best without logging you will have a sna
by slaymaker1907 5y ago
Yes there is performance cost, but removing logs removes your ability to solve problems that happened in production. At best without logging you will have a snapshot of your program at the instant the problem was detected such as a process dump or even just a stack trace. Logs tell you what happened before and while things were breaking.
- outworlder 5y ago> but removing logs removes your ability to solve problems that happened in production No it doesn't. Distributed tracing can do a far better job. As do metrics.
- marginalia_nu 5y agoMetrics tell you bupkis about what causes an error, they only tell you that something has gone wrong.
- andrewstuart2 5y agoAnd that's exactly where tracing comes in. Except instead of writing a dozen log queries in your ELK/datadog/splunk/etc system and switching contexts that many times, you have a single view that centralizes who called whom when, and even aggregates text metadata that you may have chosen to include. In other words, logs, but you don't need "started xyz" because that's just the natural beginning of each span.