From anti-systemd to pro-systemd in the shortest time

Posted Feb 2, 2014 22:30 UTC (Sun) by dlang (guest, #313)
In reply to: From anti-systemd to pro-systemd in the shortest time by khim
Parent article: This week in "As the Technical Committee Turns"

it's more than one context switch vs four, adn yes, businesses should not have to worry about these details. They should just be able to select between available tools that interoperate nicely with each other.

This includes being able to select between the different syslog implementations, and it also means being able to select between the huge number of tools that exist that deal with syslog messages today (including many that support very large volumes of logs)

No, this is not suitable for Google or Amazon levels of messages without consolidation, but it is suitable for just about any company below those levels.

Companies may choose to write customized logging mechanisms for their custom software, but every company (including google and amazon) runs a lot of software that they did not develop from scratch (think routers and switches for example), and so whatever system they use, it's going to have to support syslog anyway.

From anti-systemd to pro-systemd in the shortest time

Posted Feb 3, 2014 0:18 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

think routers and switches for example

Well, yeah, this is good example, LOL. But the fact that Google actually has it's own software on routers and switches is just a funny coincidence. No, that fact is not the main difference. Difference between Amazon/Bing/Google/Yandex and “enterprise” lies not with the fact that “big data companies” deal with larger amount of traffic but with priorities: Amazon/Bing/Google/Yandex know that all their solutions may become deficient in the future and thus have contingency plan which are enrolled long before scalability limits of the existing architecture are reached. “Enterprises” tend to exploit whatever they have till they reach 1000% of the intended scalability level where any minor change can collapse the whole house of card then start running around like headless chickens when, inevitably, such change is actually introduced. Think Danger. I'm not sure why: certainly outages which may ruin the whole company are as important for Blackberry or Verizon as they are important for Google so why such a big difference in attitude?