6 ms·
Monitoring is at the infrastructure level. CPU/Memory/Disk space/network. Logging is at the application level. Log just enough that you can replicate a problem
by aynyc 3y ago
Monitoring is at the infrastructure level. CPU/Memory/Disk space/network.
Logging is at the application level. Log just enough that you can replicate a problem, usually it means just the input.
The rest is marketing.
- WFHRenaissance 3y agoThere are some basic performance metrics that come to mind that are also important: Latency Uptime Throughput And if you're working with a distributed system, you should really be using metrics to track the health of your system at the application level.
- aynyc 3y agoLatency, uptime and throughput for an application are non-functional requirements that should be built into your application. People like to generalize that and pawn that off to logging dashboard but I personally think that's a mistake.
- crabbone 3y agoThis is misguided. Think about, eg. Ceph. From the side of the user, it gives user the storage, from the side of Ceph admin, it's an application. Now, imagine Ceph is used in Kubernetes to create PVC. Now, Kubernetes is your storage provider... and so on.
- wise0wl 3y agoI have to completely disagree. Application level metrics can also be emitted at the log level, but are much easier to work with as a metric. We have total request count, average request latency per route, and per HTTP response. This is extremely useful for finding performance regressions when new code is released.
- klysm 3y agoUsually it’s input + state to repro - good luck logging that