[HN Gopher] Elasticsearch is dead, long live Open Distro for Ela...
___________________________________________________________________
Elasticsearch is dead, long live Open Distro for Elasticsearch
Author : nathaliaariza
Score : 85 points
Date : 2021-01-15 19:17 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.logicalclocks.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.logicalclocks.com)
| mrkurt wrote:
| Rephrased: Amazon played hardball with open source Elasticsearch,
| limiting elastic's ability to make money and forcing a license
| change. Now you should use Amazon's fork instead!
|
| This is not a good outcome for people who want an independent OSS
| ecosystem.
| jchw wrote:
| My PoV: a bunch of startups chose to do open source because
| it's good PR and marketing. Then it proved to be bad for their
| business model so they moved to something much closer to shared
| source.
|
| Personally, I don't think there's anything immoral or shameful
| about selling proprietary software or shared source or
| whatever. However, SSPL and TSL and friends are just not open
| source licenses. They're more restrictive than AGPL. They are
| designed to protect a business model, not your rights as an end
| user.
|
| So it irks me that the only perspective I see reliably is that
| Amazon is screwing everyone and not how startups are willing to
| take advantage of the good will and marketing bonus and then
| switch it up when they realize it can't be reconciled with
| their business model. Continuing to call it "open source" is
| just insult to injury, imo.
| mrkurt wrote:
| "Bad for their business model" because Amazon has tremendous
| power. It wasn't just a series of bad choices by the startups
| that got them here, it was concentration of an emerging
| market over 10-15 years.
|
| Amazon dominates conversations because they extract the most
| value from open source projects. They make more money selling
| PostgreSQL, MySQL, Elasticsearch, _Docker_, Linux, etc than
| the creators of those projects. It's not the only
| perspective, but it dominates for a reason.
|
| Startups OSS their work because it helps them get users and
| figure out what to build. Amazon has the benefit of watching
| which projects become most viable (frequently because the
| startup threatens their revenue somehow) and packaging them
| up as their own services.
|
| I want to live in a world where smaller startups _can_ OSS
| their work and also monetize it. And I'd like them to be able
| to do it without raising $100mm in VC.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _Startups OSS their work because it helps them get users
| and figure out what to build._
|
| Therein lies the problem: Startups esp the ones that need
| to grow _really_ fast and at _all_ costs choose to
| permissively give away their proprietary advantage but
| still want to "capture _most_ value " from the market they
| help create are making it unnecessarily hard for themselves
| by going down the F/OSS route just to "get users and figure
| out what to build". It is a losing strategy (you'd agree?)
| because... if the startup's F/OSS product is any popular
| and lots of users do use it, it is only inviting the likes
| of Amazon (and anyone with the chops to build a cloud
| offering, really) to package it as SaaS / PaaS around it.
|
| I'd like to see startups experiment SSPL / CCPL / Commons
| Clause licensing from day zero (like materialize.io) to see
| if they can still attract users or build mind share. I'd
| hate for them to instead release it under F/OSS licenses
| (and CLA all contributions) to only conveniently turn
| hostile with super-strong copylefts like SSPL or non-Libre
| licenses like Commons Clause and BSL.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >"Bad for their business model" because Amazon has
| tremendous power
|
| this goes to the question of history, are things
| structurally so determined that if you remove someone or
| something from history another would rise to take their
| place. If Amazon had not existed to take advantage of open
| source like this would someone arise to do it? I have to
| think yes, it would be bound to happen eventually, it's a
| weakness in the model and would be exploited by someone,
| and when it was exploited people would respond by doing
| sort of like what is happening now.
|
| If Amazon was not here, someone would be making the history
| of open source exploitation rhyme.
| 015a wrote:
| > They make more money selling PostgreSQL, MySQL,
| Elasticsearch, _Docker_, Linux, etc than the creators of
| those projects. It's not the only perspective, but it
| dominates for a reason.
|
| They make more money selling EC2, with this software
| installed on top of it. If Amazon did not sell RDS, their
| customers would buy EC2 instances and install it on there.
|
| Which of these realities would you prefer:
|
| 1. Mongo, ES, PG, etc have a cloud offering, which runs on
| metal they maintain. Naturally, the reliability and
| performance is worse. Amazon loses some money. Customers
| pay more for a worse product.
|
| 2. "Open source has failed, there's no way to monetize it",
| so we get DynamoDB and Aurora and S3. Amazon wins,
| Customers (mostly) win (unless Amazon takes the gun they've
| now loaded and decides to point it at them)
|
| 3. "Its open source, but you still have to buy it" lol ok,
| all the negatives of closed source with few of the
| positives of open source. No one wants the source code so
| they can read it and hack on it, they want it only as a
| signal for their ability to move hosting providers should
| they need to, or self-host. Source code usually lasts
| longer than the people who wrote it.
|
| 4. "We'll sell support packages" so now your revenue stream
| isn't aligned with customer success, because you're
| financially incentivized to build a product which needs
| support. Nope.
|
| 5. AWS does not have RDS, but does have EC2. Mongo, ES, PG,
| etc have their own "cloud" offerings, which are really just
| re-vendored EC2. They tack on a 30% upcharge so they can
| survive and develop the product. Well, that's what both ES
| and Mongo do, today. AWS loves this. They make the same
| amount of money from selling cheaper metal without all the
| expensive upkeep of RDS. Its the customers who hurt, not
| Amazon. You miss out on integration points in the cloud
| platform. You miss out on centralized IAM. You pay more for
| a worse product.
|
| People keep acting like AWS is a big bully who got big for
| no reason, it doesn't make sense, the cloud is a monopoly
| and AWS is strong-arming other companies to get bigger.
| Maybe to some small degree, but by far the reason why AWS
| is big is because They Build What Customers Want. End of
| story. There's no philosophical debate between AWS Product
| Development and their Customers concerning whether they
| _should_ build an open source ES. There 's just "Jeeze,
| Elastic has been really screwing us over lately, is there
| anything you can d--" "Say no more, we've got you, by the
| way your two hundred thousand dollar bill is due." "Wow,
| thanks Amazon, no problem we'll pay that right away."
|
| The real thing that's killing these database companies is
| that databases are a dime-a-dozen. You pick one, who cares
| which one it is. There's some minutia here and there, do
| you want SQL, NoSQL, time series, ok you get past that and
| the rest falls into place. I've sat in the decision making
| room on this for two or three companies. No one analyzes
| what the database can do. The discussions surround "where
| are we hosting it". What options does Azure have, AWS, oh
| that company has their own hosting platform, etc etc.
| HackerNews makes a big fuss about how MongoDB has no
| transactions; I've literally NEVER heard this brought up
| once as a negative against the product (though, sure, in
| some very specific industries or use-cases it matters).
| Version 4.whatever adds a new query operator; who gives a
| fuck, 99% of database usage is "write thing, read thing
| back, query for things in a way that SQL could do in 1992,
| update thing, delete thing." Databases are boring, and the
| success of the companies who tried to build billion dollar
| businesses on top of one (Oracle as well) reflects how
| boring the software actually is.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| I feel like [3] is the heart of the matter. The value is
| open-source to companies is that it commodifies support.
| Also software at an enterprise scale costs money. Not
| being held hostage allows you to switch support providers
| or go internal or fly blind.
|
| What these new quasi-open source (ie source available)
| companies want to do leverage their authorship of the
| software to be sole support service provider (of
| meaningful size)... which is exactly the sole value the
| enterprises extract from opensource: the lack of vendor
| leverage!
|
| The market does not tolerate a contradiction.
| 015a wrote:
| Exactly. Companies like Mongo, ES, etc leveraged open
| source and venture capital to get where they are today,
| and now they're finding that open source isn't the
| business that venture capital wants it to be.
|
| I really don't know why they get so much defense in the
| community; I view their actions as a straight betrayal.
| The one thing you can say about AWS is, they're the enemy
| you know. They don't have a history of turning their back
| on OSS, but they also don't have a history of abusing OSS
| to gain traction for their product (though, the
| MySQL/Aurora relationship could reasonably fall under
| this. I think its different; not a betrayal because they
| haven't turned their backs on MySQL, but are just trying
| to make it better for their customers in ways MySQL alone
| can't do). With AWS, you know what you get; they care
| about the tech and the money; no politics (well, almost),
| no weird philosophies guiding decision making, just
| solving problems and getting paid to solve those
| problems. That's infrastructure, baby.
|
| Its a lot hazier with, say, MongoDB. You wouldn't believe
| the pressure they've put on customers on 3.6; we're
| talking weekly emails, even a few cold calls, from sales
| reps. "Hey, I know its the holidays, but have you taken a
| look at 4.0 yet? Let me send you a link to check it out,
| lots of cool stuff." Yeah; the real reason they want you
| to upgrade is because 4.0 has a bunch of new features
| that competitors like AWS can't replicate due to its new
| licensing. I'd love to hear from someone running MySQL on
| RDS, and if they've had a similar experience with AWS
| sales concerning Aurora; I suspect they haven't. Frankly,
| AWS never talks to us and we never talk to them, unless
| there's a problem or we want a discount, and they're
| always accommodating for both. The perfect relationship.
| glogla wrote:
| This is exactly why I convinced my company to buy Airflow
| from Astronomer and Presto from Starburst and Spark from
| Databricks instead of getting all that from AWS.
|
| I would rather give the money to the people who make the
| stuff than to people who (all but) steal the stuff and sell
| it to others.
|
| And it usually comes out cheaper, too!
| pjmlp wrote:
| Basically shareware is back, they just keep calling FOSS.
| api wrote:
| > not your rights as an end user.
|
| I'd love to have a license that grants FOSS rights to people
| but not to corporations. There are end users and then there
| are corporations monetizing FOSS and giving nothing back. On
| top of that the monetization is via SaaS which is a more
| closed computing model than commercial software. With SaaS
| you don't even have the data and everything you do is subject
| to total surveillance.
| motives wrote:
| The point about not giving back is not valid in the case of
| AWS which has upstreamed many of its changes to
| elasticsearch owned repos under the onerous elasticsearch
| CLA. This is also true of many FOSS projects which AWS,
| Microsoft, Google et al contribute to under the most
| liberal license conditions(such as MIT licensing which
| you'll find in 95% of Microsofts contributions for
| example). Furthermore, I do not believe FOSS should concern
| itself with who is using the codebase, as fully open source
| software is about opening the code indiscriminately,
| whether individual dev or large corporation. As soon as you
| begin to discriminate between small and large corporation
| you are no longer truly free (and fwiw elasticsearch itself
| is a large corporation that has arguably exploited the good
| will of individual dev PRs with relicensing under a non-
| FOSS license).
| liveoneggs wrote:
| creative commons has many such licenses but then it's not
| Open Source
| judge2020 wrote:
| Shouting 'FOSS' is also a great way to acquire talent.
| majormajor wrote:
| I think you're painting it as more cynical and malicious than
| it was. There was probably too much naivety, but "open source
| your software and charge for support and operations" was
| promoted pretty heavily for a while _not just by these
| companies, but by people who wanted to enjoy those projects
| being open source_.
|
| And then it got torpedoed...
| hodgesrm wrote:
| Maybe somebody who knows the history can answer this question:
| how was it that Elastic didn't just own the cloud service
| market before the AWS service showed up? They started in 2015
| it appears. That should have been a good lead. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.elastic.co/blog/announcing-support-for-
| elastic-c...
|
| Edit: added source
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| By fork they mean: a binary build straight from the unmodified
| elastic source code using the elastic build file that creates
| the OSS build bundled with a handful of plugins and components
| to add alternatives some of the things elastic bundles. They
| don't even build it themselves and it gets downloaded in binary
| form straight from Elastic's servers.
|
| If you don't believe me, this is the line in the code where
| they 'fork' in their build script:
| https://github.com/opendistro-for-elasticsearch/opendistro-b...
|
| It will be interesting to see if opendistro actually starts
| contributing to Lucene or adding value to the elastic code base
| or whether this 'fork' is effectively frozen in time and doomed
| to go nowhere due to a lack of actual development on the core
| product.
|
| I seriously doubt that they are going to put any effort
| whatsoever in that. Because in two years of pretending they
| have a fork, there has been no serious code contributions from
| their side at all that I'm aware off. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
| If you want to back an OSS version of related technology, maybe
| use something like Apache Solr, which continues to provide many
| of the same features and is part of the same ecosystem of users
| and developers that work on Lucene, which also powers
| Elasticsearch and which of course continues to contribute a lot
| to Lucene; unlike Amazon.
| 015a wrote:
| I tend to think that it, more or less, is. Elasticsearch (as an
| open source product) is not independent. Its reliant on Elastic
| co, who have a demonstrated history of reducing its FOSS-stance
| in favor of making more money. Of course, they had to do this;
| Amazon forced them into a corner, similar to MongoDB. But the
| fact that there _is_ a critical company behind these two
| databases, who _can_ be strong-armed, is a threat to the
| ecosystem these two databases have developed.
|
| Compare to Postgres. Postgres will never die. Aurora is gaining
| serious traction; do you think the Postgres developers are
| concerned? Why would they be? Their livelihood, and their
| ability to develop Postgres, does not depend on it being the #1
| database in the world.
|
| Naturally, ODfES has a tether to Amazon. Amazon could decide to
| lock more features behind AWS ESS. Its not a perfect situation,
| but it is better than the one ES has been in for the past few
| years.
| ayewo wrote:
| You say that: "Elasticsearch (as an open source product) is
| not independent. Its reliant on Elastic co, who have a
| demonstrated history of reducing its FOSS-stance in favor of
| making more money. Of course, they had to do this; Amazon
| forced them into a corner, similar to MongoDB."
|
| But there is one more factor you failed to acknowledge that
| is driving them to make more money: Elastic.co took VC
| funding.
|
| Once you accept VC funding, it narrows the definition of
| success down to what your investors think success should
| look, like rather than what the founders desire.
| majormajor wrote:
| I think having a company behind it would generally be a
| positive. People are paying for this product to continue,
| versus something with just a couple devs doing it as a hobby.
|
| Postgres had a huge head start here, and was built in a
| different world WITHOUT an Amazon equivalent.
|
| Are there a lot of major contributions to (not just on top
| of) ODfES outside of Amazon? If not, I'd be fairly worried
| about using it in a non-AWS-provided way in the long term,
| now.
| api wrote:
| This is why lots of more serious projects have been going to
| semi-OSS "source available" licenses like the BSL or more
| restrictive licenses like the AGPL. If you're a company doing
| open source or a serious project and use a liberal license,
| your work will get co-opted and monetized by cloud vendors and
| they will give you nothing. In some cases they won't even give
| you credit.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > This is not a good outcome for people who want an independent
| OSS ecosystem.
|
| I used to manage a licensed ELK cluster. The licensing was
| expensive (order of six figures) and was really only necessary
| for LDAP integration. Features like timelion were cool, but
| definitely not worth the price tag.
|
| I migrated to an AWS-managed solution to for two reasons: 1) to
| alleviate the burden of managing a cluster, 2) get away from
| the onerous costs associated with licensing. Even thought it
| was more expensive to run a managed cluster, since, at the
| time, AWS limited the disk space per node. The cost savings was
| significant enough to warrant migration.
|
| I realize that Elastic.co offers their own managed solution.
| But the version on AWS was an easier sell to management due to
| known costs and not having to deal with sales people.
|
| I think a lot of OSS is having difficulty transitioning to a
| cloud-first model. The people making choices on tech stacks
| want to spend less time dealing with infrastructure and more
| time developing stuff. And this model of charging high
| licensing fees for "enterprise" features feels antiquated, and
| provides a large attack service for companies like AWS. What
| enterprise engineers really want are AMIs, or better yet, fully
| managed cloud interfaces, to bring up and manage OSS
| deployments. Something that lets us focus on the products we
| sell; not the ones we buy.
|
| I believe that we need to rethink how OSS is delivered and how
| to make money from it. "Enterprise" support looks a lot
| different not than it did when Redhat was founded, yet the OSS
| business model remains eerily similar.
| mrkurt wrote:
| It makes _total_ sense to migrate to AWS's Elasticsearch
| product. This is, I think, the problem with incredibly
| powerful companies. Acting rationally as consumers makes them
| more powerful.
|
| I mean, I still buy stuff from Amazon, use Gmail, etc.
|
| We definitely need to rethink how OSS is delivered, but part
| of rethinking that is understanding how dominant AWS over OSS
| revenue.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _This is not a good outcome for people who want an
| independent OSS ecosystem._
|
| I understand why this is not ideal for Elastic-the-company, but
| _is_ it a bad outcome in the longer term?
|
| As someone who is happy open source exists but uses mostly
| proprietary software, this seems like a natural and expected
| response to an open source project adopting a more restrictive
| license.
| mrkurt wrote:
| I think we're all better off if small and midsized OSS
| companies thrive. Amazon is not inventing and open sourcing
| DBs. For the last 15 years, we've relied on independent
| companies to advance the state of the art for _all of us_.
| Amazon has no reason to build a compelling database and
| release it to the community. When the giant tech companies do
| open source they're work, it's usually an attempt to improve
| their existing market at the expensive of another company:
| Kubernetes, OpenDistro, Firecracker, and most of the CNCF
| projects follow this pattern.
|
| A fork is a natural response to an OSS project license
| change. But when the company that _forces_ the license change
| also creates the fork, it's gross.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Great points and a helpful perspective, thank you.
| latchkey wrote:
| Not too long ago, I tried to install the ELK stack to enable me
| to ingest some log files and easily view them on a web page.
| After many hours of digging through documentation, I gave up. The
| process was a train wreck of obscurity, complexity and heavy
| weight processes, just to do a relatively simple task.
|
| I've been doing open source for 20+ years now and one thing that
| we still haven't seemed to get right is: a simple install process
| and good documentation.
|
| ELK is dead to me, but not because of a license.
| based2 wrote:
| https://lucene.apache.org/solr/
| tstrimple wrote:
| Last time I was exploring this space, ElasticSearch was hands
| down better than solr from a "speed to market" and "developer
| experience" standpoint. Those things really matter. It's one of
| the reasons MongoDB got way more popular than it should have
| based on all the compromised built into the platform by
| default.
| mrkurt wrote:
| It's still 100x easier to setup a relocated MongoDB cluster
| with auto failover than it is with Postgres or MySQL. It's an
| underrated power.
| tootie wrote:
| I'm also a fan of projects like fuse.js which are pretty
| capable little search engines. It's nowhere the scalability of
| elastic, but if you have even a few thousand documents, you can
| jam them into an index the size of a big jpeg and have pretty
| capable search with no infrastructure.
| mdaniel wrote:
| The bad news is that anyone who has hitched their wagon to ES
| almost certainly has a bazillion lines of JSON query language
| for interacting with the thing (unless they stick strictly to
| the [query_string](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearc
| h/reference/7.7/...) search language, which I believe is
| lucene-compatible
|
| That's not even including the meta APIs like /_cat/indices and
| /_mappings et al that further lock one into ES-isms
| shawnz wrote:
| Open Distro is not a fork (not yet at least) but simply a
| repackaging of ES plus some new plugins.
|
| Open Distro will likely not continue to exist after this license
| change unless Amazon commits to turning it into a complete fork
| starting from the 7.10 version of ES.
| throwarayes wrote:
| This is why the Apache Software Foundation exists. The threat IMO
| isn't SSPL but what happens the next license change. There's
| nothing stopping future changes to make Elasticsearch
| proprietary. It's not out of the question that Elastic could be
| acquired by, say, an Oracle. Or there could be new management.
| Suddenly they change licenses of take a ridiculously maximal view
| of SSPL or Elastic license and sue everyone.
|
| With ASF, at least the trademark stays with the Foundation. Along
| with an effort to build a health community spanning more than one
| company.
|
| Elasticsearch has many benefits. But you have to take this risk
| into account if you go down the Elastic path now. I wonder if
| open distro though could become an ASF project, alleviating fears
| of license change...
| konart wrote:
| >Elasticsearch is dead
|
| No, it is not.
| fefe23 wrote:
| PSA: This site is basically an ad. And not one about
| Elasticsearch at that.
|
| I don't understand what all the noise is about. The new license
| does not make ES closed source, as far as I can tell. They re-
| license under the MongoDB server side license, which reads a lot
| like a rephrased AGPL to me.
|
| None of you had any reasonable expectation of getting a free
| Elasticsearch to begin with, and decades worth of free
| maintenance, optimization and expansion.
|
| If their product is this integral to your business, then may I
| suggest going ahead and buying a license for it?
| shawnz wrote:
| > None of you had any reasonable expectation of getting a free
| Elasticsearch to begin with
|
| That is sure what "Apache 2.0: now and forever", as they
| previously promised, means to me.
| jchw wrote:
| For what it's worth, SSPL is NOT like AGPL. IANAL but...
|
| AGPL is community oriented. With AGPL you have to contribute
| your modifications back even if you are only offering the
| application over the network and not in binary form. It extends
| the copyleft principle. It is still debated whether it even
| counts as open source.
|
| SSPL is fascinating. Let me quote Section 13:
|
| > If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified
| version available to third parties as a service, you must make
| the Service Source Code available via network download to
| everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. Making
| the functionality of the Program or modified version available
| to third parties as a service includes, without limitation,
| enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of
| the Program or modified version remotely through a computer
| network, offering a service the value of which entirely or
| primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified
| version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the
| primary purpose of the Program or modified version.
|
| > "Service Source Code" means the Corresponding Source for the
| Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source
| for _all programs that you use to make the Program or modified
| version available as a service, including, without limitation,
| management software, user interfaces, application program
| interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup
| software, storage software and hosting software_ , all such
| that a user could run an instance of the service using the
| Service Source Code you make available.
|
| Emphasis mine. Basically "release the source for your entire
| stack." That's not the same thing as AGPL. Copyleft is
| concerned with linkage. This license seems to impose terms on
| entirely unrelated pieces of software. IANAL but I don't even
| think this has been tested in court before.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| "release the source code for your entire stack".
|
| It's not "your entire stack" but rather your entire stack:
|
| > If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified
| version available to third parties as a service
|
| ...
|
| > Making the functionality of the Program or modified version
| available to third parties as a service includes, without
| limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the
| functionality of the Program or modified version remotely
| through a computer network, offering a service the value of
| which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the
| Program or modified version, or offering a service that
| accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Program or
| modified version.
|
| Where:
|
| > "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed
| under this License.
| binarymax wrote:
| Reports of Elasticsearch's death have been greatly exaggerated.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| After bending the knee at the altar of Open-Source, the blog post
| recommends Open Distro for Elasticsearch's Security plugin.
|
| ODfE's Security plugin is a fork of floragunn GmbH's mixed-
| license Search Guard product, including the bits that floragunn
| charges for. This seems to have been done with floragunn's
| blessing - presumably Amazon paid floragunn for this.
|
| But Elasticsearch B.V (the company) accuses floragunn of stealing
| Elastic's non-free X-Pack security software to create Search
| Guard, putting both Search Guard and ODfE's Security plugin on
| shaky legal ground.
|
| I remember reading about this lawsuit on Elasticsearch's
| (admittedly slanted) blog, not sure how far the lawsuit has gone
| from there: https://www.elastic.co/blog/dear-search-guard-users-
| includin...
|
| Amazon of course says that Elasticsearch's claims are baseless:
| https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/launching-open-distr...
|
| In either case, I'm not sure that ODfE will be trouble-free in
| terms of licensing issues, depending on how these lawsuits go.
| hansdieter1337 wrote:
| Is anyone aware of an open source alternative for Kibana and
| Logstash (based on lucene)?
| e12e wrote:
| Loki and grafana? (not really an alternative in the sense of
| "full text search" over logs, but an alternative in the sense
| "an interface for aggregate search over logs").
| hodgesrm wrote:
| There's also Cloki, which offers the same Loki APIs but
| stores data in ClickHouse. It looks interesting.
|
| https://github.com/qxip/cloki-go
|
| Disclaimer: I work on ClickHouse at Altinity.
| e12e wrote:
| It does look interesting, but maybe a little too exciting:
| "Super experimental". One advantage of loki, is that it is
| part of hosted grafana, so there's some commitment to it as
| a product.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Grafana started out as a fork of Kibana 3 if I remember
| correctly, which was around the time Elastic acquired Kibana.
| Since then, it has become a nice product in its own right.
| But the shared history is interesting.
|
| https://grafana.com/blog/2019/09/03/the-mostly-complete-
| hist...
| IggleSniggle wrote:
| Elasticsearch, Kibana, and Logstash all have OSS distributions,
| and are included as part of Open Distro.
| thruhiker wrote:
| Fluentd (https://www.fluentd.org) is a great alternative to
| Logstash that I've had a lot of success with. It is easy to
| pair with Elasticsearch and Kibana and myriad other inputs and
| outputs.
| DominoTree wrote:
| I've personally found Fluentd to be flaky at scale or under
| heavy load, but it does talk to damn near everything and is
| pretty simple to stand up
| zinclozenge wrote:
| If performance is an issue, try https://vector.dev/
| __jf__ wrote:
| Rsyslog could a Logstash replacement if you squint your eyes.
| caniszczyk wrote:
| for a logstash alternative, check out https://www.tremor.rs/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-15 23:02 UTC)