Re:Is It Time to Version Observability? (Signs Point to Yes)
by spimmy on Monday August 12, 2024 @04:12AM
(#41222253)
my eyes popped at the "most expensive solution i've seen so far". compared to what?!? we don't like to promise "it's always cheaper", but .. it's always cheaper, lol.
with datadog, you have to arm wrestle them for every drop of cardinality, and on honeycomb, you can throw in as much as you want, any time you want. it smells to me like you aren't used to instrumenting your code with rich data?
Re:Is It Time to Version Observability? (Signs Point to Yes)
by spimmy on Monday August 12, 2024 @04:14AM
(#41222262)
i would love to hear how you are doing all the 2.0 stuff i described on datadog. you can't zoom in, zoom out, identify outliers and correlations.. the data doesn't exist! at best, you can predefine a few connective points between your logs and metrics and traces.
which is fine.. if your systems aren't that complicated and rarely fail in unpredictable ways. if that's the case, -- i'm glad you've found something that owrks for you.
Charity's talk about costs is annoying too. Honeycomb is the most expensive solution I've seen so far. Until they put a "we'll match your logging+metrics contact cost for same volume and features" guarantee on the pricing page, it's just empty talk.
Don't get me wrong, I love the Honeycomb service and what they're doing. I would love to use it. But this is just telling me "you're doing things wrong, you should do (things I'm already doing) using our system and save money (even though pricing page disagrees)".