5 ms·

for one it's extremely costly, in vcpu , storage , transfer rates. and if you're paying a third-party logger , multiply each by 10x

• shakna 1y ago
  If you're in a testing environment, where your SIT and UAT are looking to break stuff though, don't you usually want to be able to look to a log of everything?
  • tonymet 1y ago
    I could see a couple reasons against. For one, it's expensive to seralize/encode your objects into the logger , even if you reduce logging level on prod. Secondly, you can't represent the heap & stack well as strings. Concurrent threads and object trees are better debugged with a debugger (e.g. gdb).
• pavel_lishin 1y ago
  That makes it foolish, but I'm not sure if it's lazy.
  • tonymet 1y ago
    the lazy part comes from the fact that it's easier to be foolish in this case than to be selective about what gets logged. So lazy & foolish.
    • arccy 1y ago
      it's not lazy, it's a good use of time, you don't go back and forth when you realize you forgot to log something important.
• petesergeant 1y ago
  Axiom wants $60/m if you send them a terabyte of logs, which is basically nothing compared to the cost of developers trying to debug issues without detailed logs.
  • tonymet 1y ago
    I think you're being naive on the costs but that's just me. That's the intro price, plus you have transfer fees , vcpu . I've never used axiom, but all the logging platforms I've used like splunk, datadog, loggly are a major op-ex line item. And telling your developers their time is priceless means they will produce the lowest quality product.
  • tonymet 1y ago
    not to mention the performance impact of synchronous logging. Write a trivial benchmark and add logging and you will see cost per operation 1000x