[koliber]

I'm wondering how this would compare to compressing the logs with Broli and a custom dictionary.

I would imagine the size reduction would be much better than the 40% Kevin showed with his approach.

As for volume, I don't know if volume is a problem. With logs I either need to look at one log entry to get it's details, a small handful to see a pattern, or aggregate statistics.

I can do all of those things wether the volume is 1x, 100x, or 100000x.

In other words, size matters to me, but I don't care about volume.

On the other hand, for cases when we use tools that charge for uncompressed size or message count, then Kevin's approach could be a useful cost-saving measure.

[ericyd]

I interpretted the article's argument as saying that volume can be a major business cost, not that it creates operational challenges.