Linux Community · linux logging: what separates "readable" from "usable"

1.1K
LIr/linux·posted by kernel_panic·32 minutes agoHelpPinned

linux logging: what separates "readable" from "usable"

Some background first. Our setup is linux plus three downstream services, seven figures of daily requests, peaking around nine in the evening.

// Minimal reproduction: you must use a real long-tail distribution here.
// Uniform load-test traffic will never trigger this.
func (s *Server) handle(ctx context.Context) error {
    conn, err := s.pool.Acquire(ctx)
    if err != nil {
        return fmt.Errorf("acquire: %w", err)
    }
    defer conn.Release()

    return s.do(ctx, conn)
}

One last trap: in container environments remember to adjust the memory-related parameters in step. Otherwise the host limit and the process expectation disagree, and the symptom is intermittent, unreproducible failure.

The first thing was to collapse the variables. We were changing config and upgrading the version at the same time, and afterwards nobody could say which change caused what. We rolled back to moving one variable at a time, re-ran three times, and only then did the curve settle. Tedious, but not skippable.

What genuinely surprised me was the tail. The average looked great while P99 jumped by an order of magnitude past some threshold. The cause was not linux itself but our upstream connection reuse — the load test traffic was too clean and hid the long-tail requests.

Worth noting: the official docs do cover this, just in a very inconspicuous spot. I only found it reading the source comments, where the author explains the reasoning — roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

426 comments

426 comments

· first 120 loaded
M
Zzhou_yiOP·12 minutes ago

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

513
Cchen_dev·2 days agoedited

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

479
Ddev_zhou·2 days ago

This is not a linux problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

194
Sslow_query·2 days ago

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

451
Ttang_haoOP·2 days ago

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

331
Sswoole_leeMod·5 hours ago

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

411
Bbob_chen·2 hours ago

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

405
Aalice_dev·2 hours ago

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

153
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

One counter-example: below linux 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

142
Wwinter·2 days ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

272
Kkernel_panic·3 minutes ago

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

8
Sswoole_lee·3 minutes ago

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

26
Oops_wangMod·2 days ago

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

507
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

53
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

This is not a linux problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

142
Hhuang_ke·12 minutes ago

This is not a linux problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

403
Ddev_zhou·1 hour ago

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

403
Sswoole_lee·1 hour ago

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

327
Oops_wang·2 days ago

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

337
Bbob_chen·12 minutes ago

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

322
Ttang_hao·2 days agoedited

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

290
Nnikic·28 minutes ago

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

285
Zzhou_yi·2 days ago

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

262
RraseOP·1 hour ago

One counter-example: below linux 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

199
Oops_wang·2 days agoedited

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

257
Kkernel_panic·3 minutes agoedited

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

213
Rrase·2 days ago

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

183
Hhuang_ke·28 minutes ago

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

257
Sswoole_lee·2 days ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

105
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

155
NnikicOP·yesterday

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

90
KkiteOP·2 days ago

One counter-example: below linux 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

122
Llinlin·2 days ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

144
Zzhou_yi·5 hours agoedited

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

1
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

326
Lli_ming·2 days ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

131
Ttang_hao·3 minutes agoedited

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

118
Kkite·2 days ago

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

28
Mmike_xu·28 minutes ago

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

113
Lli_ming·2 days ago

I just read the linux source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

180
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

107
Bbob_chen·5 hours ago

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

426
Cchen_devOP·just now

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

35
Zzhou_yiOP·28 minutes ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

16
Oops_wangOP·2 days ago

This is not a linux problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

12
Aalice_devOP·2 days ago

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

11
Oops_wangMod·2 days ago

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

151
Sslow_query·2 days ago

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

71
Ddev_zhou·just now

One counter-example: below linux 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

63
Rran_bo·12 minutes ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

55
Hhuang_ke·1 hour ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

50
Cchen_devMod·2 days ago

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

323
Mmike_xu·yesterday

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

473
Zzhou_yi·2 days agoedited

I just read the linux source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

128
Rran_bo·2 days ago

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

111
Lli_ming·2 days ago

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

160
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

107
Kkernel_panicOP·2 days ago

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

281
Sswoole_lee·2 days ago

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

65
Aalice_dev·just now

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

182
Kkite·2 days ago

This is not a linux problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

235
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

88
Sslow_queryMod·2 days ago

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

36
Oops_wang·1 hour ago

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

50
Aalice_dev·2 days agoedited

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

21
Kkite·1 hour agoedited

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

223
Nnikic·2 days ago

One counter-example: below linux 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

1
Sswoole_lee·2 days agoLevel 6

This is not a linux problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

205
Zzhou_yi·2 days ago

One counter-example: below linux 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

10
Oops_wang·2 days agoedited

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

3
Bbob_chen·12 minutes ago

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

6
Oops_wang·2 hours agoedited

I just read the linux source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

1
Rrase·1 hour ago

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

500
Ttang_haoMod·2 days ago

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

412
Wwinter·2 days agoLevel 6

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

180
Hhuang_ke·2 days agoLevel 6

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

1
Bbob_chen·2 days agoedited

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

344
Bbob_chen·2 days agoLevel 6

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

63
Ttang_hao·12 minutes ago

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

65
Zzhu_zong·2 days agoLevel 6

I just read the linux source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

92
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

2
Llinlin·2 hours agoeditedLevel 6

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

6
Oops_wang·2 days ago

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

1
Lli_ming·2 days ago

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

65
Sslow_query·2 hours ago

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

121
Ttang_hao·yesterday

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

11
Llinlin·2 days ago

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

164
Oops_wangMod·2 days ago

One counter-example: below linux 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

341
Bbob_chen·3 minutes ago

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

1
Rran_bo·2 days ago

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

1
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

129
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

89
Zzhou_yi·2 days ago

This is not a linux problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

267
Sswoole_leeOP·2 days ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

1
Rran_boMod·2 days ago

I just read the linux source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

6
Mmike_xuMod·2 days ago

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

399
Hhuang_keOP·just now

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

116
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

I just read the linux source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

38
RraseMod·2 days ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

1
Ddev_zhou·2 days agoLevel 6

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

52
Rran_bo·2 days ago

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

158
Kkite·just now

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

49
Nnikic·3 minutes ago

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

129
Zzhu_zong·2 hours ago

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

20
Lli_ming·5 hours ago

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

21
Kkernel_panic·2 days ago

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

13
Kkite·just now

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

12
Bbob_chen·2 hours ago

I just read the linux source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

11
Bbob_chen·2 days agoedited

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

224
Lli_ming·2 days ago

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

256
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

13
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

I just read the linux source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

282
Wwinter·2 days ago

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

1
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

11
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

10
Lli_ming·2 hours ago

This is not a linux problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

9
Zzhou_yi·2 days ago

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

10
Ddev_zhou·just now

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

8
Lli_ming·2 days ago

One counter-example: below linux 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

1
Sslow_query·2 days ago

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

25

This is the post detail page /en/c/linux/post/p0. Posts and comments are generated deterministically from a seeded PRNG, so the same post always renders the same content and the link can be shared, reloaded and indexed. In production this page reads MySQL for the post, Redis for hot-post caching, and fetches the whole comment tree in a single query on the path column.

See the database schema →