5 second batching seems to only allow for messages every 5 seconds

[matthalladay]

This might be the intended usage of the hook, but I intend to potentially log messages faster than every five seconds and definitely don't want them aggregated. I just changed 5 to 0 in the code, but wanted to let you know.

[vincentserpoul]

Should it be a param instead?
We could simply make it appear in a param of NewInfluxDBHook, as the rest of the default values

[matthalladay]

I think that it 'should' batch them, but should queue/coalesce for the
prescribed time period and then 'write multiple points" to influx as
described in
https://docs.influxdata.com/influxdb/v0.11/guides/writing_data/. I would
not expect log messages to be dropped, even if they are happening one
right after the other.

From: Vincent Serpoul notifications@github.com
To: Abramovic/logrus_influxdb logrus_influxdb@noreply.github.com
Cc: matthalladay matt_halladay@selinc.com
Date: 03/23/2016 09:55 PM
Subject: Re: [logrus_influxdb] 5 second batching seems to only
allow for messages every 5 seconds (#10)

Should it be a param instead?
?
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub[github.com]

[abramovic]

What if we use a channel and include a timer that processes the batch every 5 seconds?

pointChannel := make(chan entry *logrus.Entry)

func (hook *InfluxDBHook) Fire(entry *logrus.Entry) error {
     pointChannel <- entry
     ...
     ...
     ...
     return nil
}
...
...
...
func (hook *InfluxDBHook) processEntries() error {

L:
for {
        select {
        case pt, open := <-pointChannel:
            if !open {
                break L
            }
            hook.batch.AddPoint(pt)

            // when the batch size gets too large, write to adapter
            if len(hook.batch) >= MAX_SIZE {
                processBatch(hook.batch)
            }

        case time.NewTicker(time.Millisecond * 5000):
                        processBatch(hook.batch)

        default:
            // do nothing
        }
    }
return nil
}

[vincentserpoul]

@matthalladay: what you describe is what it is supposed to do, are you saying it doesn't "queue" points and then write multiple points? I've used this code for a while on my side and didn't see any dropped points. Maybe I didn't pay enough attention?
I will check more carefully, add a test and add the nobatch option.

@abramovic , I'm not sure it would solve the issue, if there is one. I'm not sure what the issue is though :)

[abramovic]

@matthalladay @vincentserpoul
https://github.com/Abramovic/logrus_influxdb/tree/batching

/// This should remove remove the batching 
NewInfluxDBWithConfig(&Config{BatchInterval: 0}) 

[matthalladay]

I'm sorry I'm a bit of a newb when it comes to Go, but I know what was
happening. The 5 second delay never gets triggered if you don't have
another message. The times are still accurate when the messages do get
triggered, but you can't see them. I'm going to try triggering a go
routine with a channel and a delay.

• Matt

From: Vincent Serpoul notifications@github.com
To: Abramovic/logrus_influxdb logrus_influxdb@noreply.github.com
Cc: matthalladay matt_halladay@selinc.com
Date: 03/23/2016 09:55 PM
Subject: Re: [logrus_influxdb] 5 second batching seems to only
allow for messages every 5 seconds (#10)

Should it be a param instead?
?
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub[github.com]

[abramovic]

@vincentserpoul

I don't think this writes to InfluxDB every 5 seconds. It looks like it writes to InfluxDB if it's been more than 5 seconds since the last time a logrus entry was collected.

if hook.lastBatchUpdate.Add(hook.batchInterval).Before(time.Now()) ||
        len(hook.batchP.Points()) > 200 {
        err = hook.client.Write(hook.batchP)
        if err != nil {
            return fmt.Errorf("Fire: %v", err)
        }
        hook.lastBatchUpdate = time.Now()
        hook.batchP = nil
    }

Example:

• 12:00 - first logrus entry is fired
• ... (no data from logrus is collected)
• ... (no data from logrus is collected)
• 12:50 - second logurs entry is fired. The two logrus entries from 12:00 and 12:50 are both flushed to InfluxDB since it's been more than 5 seconds since 12:00

[abramovic]

@matthalladay - yes, I think that's what's happening with the current batching. I just made a pull request that should take care of that for you.

@vincentserpoul thoughts? #11

[matthalladay]

Nick,

Thanks for making changes so quickly! There is another issue (not so much
with the hook as with how info is written to Influx). Because influx is
limited to storing unique points based on the time stamp, on my computer I
needed to add an additional delay of 100 nanoseconds. With this change,
we've done nothing with the overloaded constructor where you pass in your
own Client, you need to call stop. See below for the changes and an
implementation.

Changes:

Implementation:

• Matt

From: Nick notifications@github.com
To: Abramovic/logrus_influxdb logrus_influxdb@noreply.github.com
Cc: matthalladay matt_halladay@selinc.com
Date: 03/24/2016 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [logrus_influxdb] 5 second batching seems to only
allow for messages every 5 seconds (#10)

@matthalladay[github.com] - yes, I think that's what's happening with the
current batching. I just made a pull request that should take care of that
for you.
@vincentserpoul[github.com] thoughts? #11[github.com]
?
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub[github.com]

[abramovic]

The images didn't get attached. Can you upload the images to Github? #10

Most likely the default precision is being set to milliseconds. Are you using NewInfluxDBHook or NewWithClientInfluxDBHook?

[vincentserpoul]

@matthalladay @abramovic
Sorry, I'm not on the same timezone, I missed most of the action. I see that you made some progress.
I now understand the issue.

I will implement the new updated lib and bring some feedback, most probably 👍

nice reactivity Nick!

[abramovic]

@matthalladay are you still having issues with the timestamps?

[abramovic]

@matthalladay - any update? Thanks!