4 ms·
> That's staff, the building, equipment, power, water, everything...the estimated Splunk cost was more than that. Wow, it's THAT expensive?
by KomoD 3y ago
> That's staff, the building, equipment, power, water, everything...the estimated Splunk cost was more than that.
Wow, it's THAT expensive?
- silverfox17 3y agoYou can't really make an informed decision without knowing how much data they were moving. For it to be that expensive, you'd need to be moving a ludicrous amount of data, and you can always parse data down to the required fields before indexing, which saves on licensing costs.
- Damogran6 3y agoin 20 years of doing SIEM and SIEMlike solutions, I've yet to find an engagement that said 'Oh, yes...our volumes are XX and YY'...mostly it's a /shrug and a less than educated guess. There's even reluctance to turning things on and _watching_ it for 10 minutes. An activity that would immediately give you a much better idea of volume. Folks just don't like doing it. Then you get the things were setting up a redundant logsource is just unwise. DNS logging was 2 orders of magnitude greater than everything else a SIEM was doing. And Email was about the same size.
- wbl 3y agoWhat are the required fields in an incident with a new bug pray tell?
- silverfox17 3y agoIt obviously depends. It's not a one size fits all answer.
- baq 3y agoThe joke used to be 'splunk is amazing until the first invoice comes in', it's funny because it's true. Note Datadog is very similar in that regard.
- jcrites 3y agoYes ... it's very possible for DataDog costs to exceed the cost of the infrastructure that it's monitoring (e.g. AWS). I've seen it happen. (If you aren't careful and aren't managing your costs, but I suppose that's true of almost anything =)
- gibolt 3y agoSounds like a double whammy. Misconfigure one AWS service, and you get hit with a giant bill from both.