[reymus]

I have always heard the opposite, that too much logging is as bad as no logging. I see the point of having the logs to be able to find out what happened, but what happens when there' s so much logging that the information needed is just buried into huge amount of noise?

[msielski]

This is true, without the right tools. I am moving to logstash with kibana to do this, and it's looking very promising. See http://www.elasticsearch.org/videos/kibana-logstash/

[revo13]

Concur with this. Log everything, and use Logstash/Kibana to sift through it for what you are looking for.

[exelius]

This was true before Splunk. If you logged too much, your logs could start to outstrip the assumptions behind your log rotations and cause trouble. Now the common wisdom is to just log everything so you can Splunk it later if you have a problem. Verbose logging + Splunk have made production incident identification so much easier than it used to be.

Splunk DOES charge by the GB, but it's not very expensive in the long run.

[gizmo686]

My favorite systems to work with are the ones with overly verbose logs, where the overly verbose parts were clearly tagged and could be filtered out. Generally, we would never look at the verbose lines, and even when we did, we would normally have some idea what we were looking for, and be able to filter somewhat for it.