The primary case is a zero throttle, that is no throttling. It also seems plausible to me that different production settings will yield different levels of "noise" that the ops will want to tune for those local conditions.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:51 AM Sudheer Vinukonda <sudheervinuko...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Right, but I'm wondering what sort of customization is really needed or > what the use cases are where you'd need different rates of throttling for > different log messages, unless the intent is not protecting the system from > flood of logging (which is basically the same for any kind of log). > > On Monday, October 19, 2020, 09:48:33 AM PDT, Alan Carroll > <solidwallofc...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote: > > I'm addressing the question of "why not do this for all messages?". I > think > Neue Brie's approach for specific messages is fine. If, however, the > general logging calls were replaced with it, then you have the > customization problem. > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:41 AM Sudheer Vinukonda > <sudheervinuko...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Hmm, may be I'm not understanding the intent of the proposed throttling > > and the problem we are trying to solve well. > > My understanding was that a flood of certain (any) kind of log can result > > in significant disk i/o and impact the system throughput and stability > and > > the proposed throttling is to be resilient against such issues. For such > > issues, I'm not sure if there's a lot of value in supporting advanced > > customizations. > > If the scope of the requirement is beyond resiliency and if there's a > > legitimate use case where throttling when exceeding a rate of 10 > > occurrences/sec vs 5/sec matters for each given type of log message, > then I > > guess that's a different problem altogether. > > Nevertheless, sounds like a good topic to discuss during the summit? > > On Monday, October 19, 2020, 08:23:12 AM PDT, Alan Carroll > > <solidwallofc...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > I strongly suspect we might want it per logging message. At a minimum I > > don't think all messages should be throttled in this way, which is also > an > > answer to Leif' question "how do I know which one to use"? Use the one > that > > throttles if you want throttling, use the other if you don't want > > throttling. If you don't know that, you might want to think more > carefully > > about what you're logging. > > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 9:09 AM Sudheer Vinukonda > > <sudheervinuko...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Hmm..do you mean system wide value? We can still have the wrap around > > > frequency configurable, but unless we want it customized per log line > > (I’m > > > not sure if this is really needed?), a system wide config may still be > > > possible to configure, no? > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 2020, at 7:04 AM, Alan Carroll > > > <solidwallofc...@verizonmedia.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > My concern at this point is the lack of configurability of the > > throttle > > > > time. The underlying implementation supports it but by wrapping it > > > directly > > > > in the logging call, only the default value can be used. > > > > > >
