3 ms·

How are you different from something like Signoz ?

prabhatsharma 3y ago
I think Signoz is a good product. The team really understands that it you need all 3 - logs, metrics and traces - to effectively observe and troubleshoot applications and has done a good implementation. Certain difference on how OpenObserve is different than Signoz: 1. Built in rust for high performance and memory safety. 2. Has its own data storage engine based on open specification of Apache Parquet. This allows the data to be used by other applications outside of OpenObserve if desired. 3. Use stateless nodes in architecture (You are going to love it from maintenance point of view). 4. Use of object storage for extreme scalability and low cost. 5. Requires far lower resources than Signoz. Can practically be run using a single binary/container. There are users ingesting terabytes of data on a single node. There are people running OpenObserve on raspberry-pi. 6. A lot easier to setup and maintain. 7. Ingest and query functions are awesome. Give them a shot.
- ankitnayan 3y ago
  Hi Prabhat, I am one of the maintainers at SigNoz. Nice to see OpenObserve's belief that the future of Observability should be OpenSource. We chose clickhouse rather than building a database as it takes multi-year effort to move a db to maturity and clickhouse has been battle-tested at Yandex, Uber and Cloudflare. Clickhouse also provides native integration with s3 and other blob storages. Our users have been using disk as hot storage for a week and moving the data to s3 after that. Tiered storage is really cool in terms of query performance. We have also seen logs data of our users at a compression ratio of 30x/40x. We have published a logs benchmark (https://github.com/SigNoz/logs-benchmark https://github.com/SigNoz/logs-benchmark) where the data is very high-cardinal (causing a compression factor of only 2.5x). Would love to see how does OpenObserve perform in that dataset someday. Wishing you best for the journey ahead.

I think Signoz is a good product. The team really understands that it you need all 3 - logs, metrics and traces - to effectively observe and troubleshoot applications and has done a good implementation. Certain difference on how OpenObserve is different than Signoz: 1. Built in rust for high performance and memory safety. 2. Has its own data storage engine based on open specification of Apache Parquet. This allows the data to be used by other applications outside of OpenObserve if desired. 3. Use stateless nodes in architecture (You are going to love it from maintenance point of view). 4. Use of object storage for extreme scalability and low cost. 5. Requires far lower resources than Signoz. Can practically be run using a single binary/container. There are users ingesting terabytes of data on a single node. There are people running OpenObserve on raspberry-pi. 6. A lot easier to setup and maintain. 7. Ingest and query functions are awesome. Give them a shot.

ankitnayan 3y ago
Hi Prabhat, I am one of the maintainers at SigNoz. Nice to see OpenObserve's belief that the future of Observability should be OpenSource. We chose clickhouse rather than building a database as it takes multi-year effort to move a db to maturity and clickhouse has been battle-tested at Yandex, Uber and Cloudflare. Clickhouse also provides native integration with s3 and other blob storages. Our users have been using disk as hot storage for a week and moving the data to s3 after that. Tiered storage is really cool in terms of query performance. We have also seen logs data of our users at a compression ratio of 30x/40x. We have published a logs benchmark (https://github.com/SigNoz/logs-benchmark https://github.com/SigNoz/logs-benchmark) where the data is very high-cardinal (causing a compression factor of only 2.5x). Would love to see how does OpenObserve perform in that dataset someday. Wishing you best for the journey ahead.