4 ms·
One way to reframe this is: "as a user [of the logs], what might I want to know?" In my experience, this post is often right (and the logs are often wrong). Th
by ledauphin 1y ago
One way to reframe this is: "as a user [of the logs], what might I want to know?"
In my experience, this post is often right (and the logs are often wrong). There's a tendency to either log too much or log too little - if only a few items are getting processed, it's fine and maybe even good to log all 7 of them.
But if many, many are getting processed - you'll experience semantic overload as a reader of the logs. What you want is a compressed form
Logging per time interval can be a very handy approach. In my work, we've settled on a hybrid approach - calculate in real time how often things are happening and then log the number of things that have happened, but at a rate that is roughly one log every N seconds.
This takes some more engineering up front but is remarkably often what a log reader actually wants.
- kiitos 1y agoThe "compressed form" of logs you're describing here is really just metrics...
- ledauphin 1y agoit's not, though. sometimes you need actual active logs to tell you that something is progressing.
- kiitos 1y agoYou don't need logs for that, you can get it from metrics just fine. Via absolute value counters, or some kind of percentage-complete gauge, either way you can easily see progress over time...