Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

isBulk option not used #45

Open
eschwartz opened this issue Jun 23, 2016 · 2 comments
Open

isBulk option not used #45

eschwartz opened this issue Jun 23, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@eschwartz
Copy link

I'm trying to figure out what exactly isBulk option does.

I see that it's passed on to loggly.createClient, but loggly does not use the isBulk option..

I did notice, however, that the loggly client accepts an array of log messages, and then sends them to the bulk endpoint from the Loggly api. Would it be possible to buffer winston message, and then pass them as an array to the loggly client?

I'm asking this because I saw a big hit to performance when using winston-loggly in production, and I'm guessing because it's sending each message individually (including 6,000 - 8,000 access logs per minute, and some multiple of that in other application logs).

@mitchellporter
Copy link

I'm curious about this as well. If you look at Loggly's documentation for setting up nodejs it makes no mention of winston-loggly. It only tells you to use Loggly's own fork of this package called winston-loggly-bulk.

My guess is that Loggly is forcing the bulk option for the exact performance reasons you mentioned.

@eschwartz did you make any progress on this?

@mitchellporter
Copy link

mitchellporter commented Sep 16, 2016

Here's an update straight from Loggly themselves: #6 (comment)

They added bulk support to deal with memory issues and sending so many individual requests. So it looks like this package should not be used, and winston-loggly-bulk should be used instead.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants