You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think the approach most are leaning towards for logs, following the traces implementation, is attaching only 1 exporter to a processor. However, another consideration is to support multiple exporters per processor.
Advantages of attaching multiple exporters to a processor:
Could reduce number of times batching is done
Disadvantages:
Could also increase the time it takes to complete the export to all destinations, since each batch export would only take as little of time as the slowest exporter takes to finish its export.
Unknown:
What would be the return status from the processor from ForceFlush() or Shutdown() not all the exporters succeed/fail at the same time?
Would user interact directly with processor or exporter to shutdown or forceflush a certainexporter?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
kxyr
changed the title
Supporting Multiple Exporters per Processor for Logs
Supporting single vs. multiple exporters per processor for Logs
Dec 3, 2020
I think the approach most are leaning towards for logs, following the traces implementation, is attaching only 1 exporter to a processor. However, another consideration is to support multiple exporters per processor.
Advantages of attaching multiple exporters to a processor:
Disadvantages:
Unknown:
ForceFlush()
orShutdown()
not all the exporters succeed/fail at the same time?Opening up this issue for discussion
cc @alolita @MarkSeufert
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: