Tags
configuration, Fluent Bit, Fluentd, labels, migrating, migration, regex, relabelling, tag, tags
Recently, a question came up on the Fluent Bit Slack group about how the Fluentd Label feature and the associated relabel plugin map from Fluentd to Fluent Bit.
Fluentd Labels are a way to implement event routing, and we’ll look more closely at them in a moment. Both Fluent Bit and Fluentd support the control of which plugins respond to an event by using tags, which are based on a per-plugin basis.
To address this, let’s take a moment to see what Fluentd’s labels do.
What do Fluentd’s Labels Do?
Fluentd introduced the concept of labels, where one or more plugins could be grouped, creating a pipeline of plugins. Events can also be labeled, effectively putting them into a pipeline that can be defined with that label.
As a result, we would see something like:
<input>
Label myLabel
</input>
<input>
Label myOtherLabel
</input>
<label myLabel>
<filter>
-- do something to the log event
</filter>
<filter>
-- do something to the log event
</filter>
<output>
</output>
</label>
<label myOtherLabel>
<filter>
-- do something to the log event
</filter>
<output>
</output>
</label>
<output tagName>
</output>Fluentd’s labelling essentially tries to simplify the routing of events within a Fluentd deployment, particularly when multiple plugins are needed, aka a pipeline.
Fluent Bit’s routing
Fluent Bit doesn’t support the concept of labels. While both support tags can include wildcards within the tag name, Fluent Bit has an extension that adds power to the routing using tags. Rather than introducing an utterly separate routing control, it extended how tags can be used by allowing the matching to be achieved through regular expressions, which is far more flexible. This could look like (using classic format):
[INPUT]
Name plugin-name
Tag myTag
[INPUT]
Name another-plugin-name
Tag myOtherTag
[INPUT]
Name alternate-plugin-name
Tag myAlternateTag
[OUTPUT]
Name output-plugin-name
Match myTag
[OUTPUT]
Name another-output-plugin
Match_regex my[Other|Alternate]TagThe only downsides to processing regular expressions this way are the potentially greater computational effort (depending on the sophistication of the regular expression) and the use of the match on every plugin.
Migration options
The original question was prompted by the idea of migrating from Fluentd to Fluent Bit. When considering this, Labels don’t have a natural like-for-like transition path.
There are several options …
- Refactor to use a structured tag approach
- Adopt REGEX matches against tags
- Separate Fluent Bit deployments
Refactor
Often, tags originate from a characteristic or direct attribute of the event message (payload). Instead, treat a tag purely as a routing mechanism, design a hierarchical routing strategy based on domains, and then use your tags for just this purpose. Aligning tags to domains rather than technical characteristics will help.
This creates the opportunity to progressively refactor out the need for labels. this will then make the transition through
REGEX
An alternative to this is to adopt regular expressions to select appropriate tags regardless of their structure, naming convention, or use of case. While this is very flexible, the expressions can be harder to maintain, and if some tags are driven by event data, there is an element of risk (although likely small) of an unexpected event being caught and processed by a plugin as it unwittingly matches a regular expression.
Multiple Fluent Bit Instances
Fluent Bit’s footprint is very small, notably smaller than that of Fluentd, as no runtime components like Ruby are involved. This means we could deploy multiple instances, with each instance acting as an implicit pipeline for events to be processed. The downside is that the equivalent of relabelling is more involved, as you’ll have to have a plugin to explicitly redirect the event to another instance. We also need to ensure that the events start with the correct Fluent Bit node.
Conclusion
When we try to achieve the same behaviour in two differing products that do have feature differences, trying to force a new product to produce exactly the same behaviour can result in decisions that can feel like compromises. In these situations, we tend to forget that we may have made trade-off decisions that led to the use of a feature in the first place.
When we find ourselves in such situations, while it may feel more costly, it may be worth reflecting on whether it is more cost-effective to return to the original problem, design the solution based on the new product’s features, and maximize the benefit.
Fluentd to Fluent Bit Portability a possibility?
This may start to sound like Fluentd to Fluent Bit portability is impossible and requires us to build our monitoring stack from scratch. Based on my experiences, these tools are siblings, not direct descendants, so there will be differences. In the work on building a migration tool (a project I’ve not had an opportunity to conclude), I’d suggest there is an 85/15 match, and migration is achievable, and the bulk of such a task can be automated. But certainly not all, and just seeking a push-button cutover means you’ll miss the opportunity to take advantage of the newer features.
Do you need a migration?
Fluentd may not be on the bleeding edge feature-wise now, but if your existing systems aren’t evolving and demanding or able to benefit from switching to Fluent Bit, then why force the migration? Let your core product path drive the transition from one tool to another. Remember, the two have interoperable protocols – so a mixed estate is achievable, and for the most part will be transparent.
Phil (aka MP3Monster)'s Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.