[timr]

I don't know...that part sounded like a hacked-up, half-implementation of scribe: https://github.com/facebook/scribe/wiki

I'd be interested in hearing if they tried to use Scribe for the same task and found it wanting, or if there's some other story.

[jamwt]

Could you say more about why Bump's implementation of network-based queued logging is "hacked-up" while facebook's (by implication) isn't?

To answer your question, simply put, no one here had heard about Scribe.

[timr]

"Could you say more about why Bump's implementation of network-based queued logging is "hacked-up" while facebook's (by implication) isn't?"

Well, mainly because Scribe was purpose-built to do log aggregation on a large scale, and has nice features to prevent data loss in the event of network and node failure. It's also pretty well-tested at this point, given its origins and community. Check the wiki to which I linked.

I didn't mean my comment to imply anything negative. I was just trying to point out to the parent comment that there's now a better option than rolling a custom log aggregator on top of Redis. That may not have been true when you started your system. Mea culpa.

[jubos]

scribe is a very powerful logging tool, but it also comes with its dependency costs. Compiling boost, thrift, fb303, and all the scribe logging libraries as well. If you are already a thrift shop, it can make a lot of sense, but otherwise, there is a lot of legwork to get it up and running.

[timr]

Compiling a few libraries is worse than rolling your own log aggregation service? Really?

I'd rather spend a day compiling libraries than spend a week re-writing a piece of basic infrastructure.