Grafana Loki Reviews

The solution is used to understand the problem that has been taking place in the application board. 

The log collection feature is good and the solution is easily understandable. 

The Docker container partition feature needs improvement as they do not reuse the space and goes into a pending state. 

I have been using Grafana Loki for one year. 

The initial setup is not very difficult or straightforward. 

We can provide a dashboard really fast with Grafana Loki for nontechnical people. We can generate and provide easy visibility for the people using Grafana Loki.

The most valuable feature of Grafana Loki is the dashboards which are really simple to create. Grafana Loki's dashboard is really simple to create. I usually use Grafana Loki for nontechnical people because it's so simple that they can understand it.

Grafana Loki can improve showing the whole flow of the request. The correlation of requests is not simple in Grafana Loki and can be improved. Currently, creating alerts or alarms on the Grafana Loki dashboard is a little bit complex and should be improved.

Grafana Loki's reports need to be more customizable so that I can show in my reports part of the dashboards and some metrics, etc.

I have been using Grafana Loki for four years.

Grafana Loki's stability needs a little work. The solution is simple on-premises, but sometimes, it has issues. I rate Grafana Loki a seven out of ten for stability.

I rate Grafana Loki an eight out of ten for scalability.

Grafana Loki's technical support is not good. We would be lost if we didn't have the Grafana community support.

Neutral

Grafana Loki's initial setup was simple because we used a docker to set it up.

The time to set up and configure Grafana Loki is really fast, and it provides a quick review of what is happening on the systems. We have seen a return on investment with Grafana Loki, given that its on-premises version is free and the on-cloud version is cheap.

You can use the free version of Grafana Loki on-premises. The on-cloud version of Grafana Loki is also affordable and not expensive.

I am using the latest version of Grafana Loki. I'm using both the cloud and the on-premises Grafana Loki solution.

Grafana Loki is simple to set up. Non-technical people can use it because it's so simple that you don't need to spend many hours checking or studying it. I suggest Grafana Loki as the first simple and cheap solution for somebody who wants some monitoring of their system.

Overall, I rate Grafana Loki an eight out of ten.

My company mainly uses the product to ship logs to Grafana Loki, and we also use the tool to grasp some metrics.

I like the tool's simplicity and the fact that it allows data to be stored on object-based storage. I found Grafana Loki to be easier to set up and manage than Elasticsearch.

In Grafana Loki, the creation of metrics is not so easy, making it an area that could be made easier. I am on an old version of the tool, and the creation of metrics may be better in the newer versions of the tool.

I have been using Grafana Loki for four years. I use the solution's older version, which is probably from four years ago. I also have another newer version of the tool for a small personal project. I am a user of the solution.

The solution's stability has never been a problem. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I work in a very small organization with around 10 to 15 users of Grafana Loki.

I have experience with Elasticsearch and used a very simple syslog implementation back in the day. In my current company, there was a great need for a simple solution, so we chose Grafana Loki.

The product's initial setup phase was easy.

I rate the product's initial setup phase an eight or nine on a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult setup phase, and ten is an easy setup phase.

I have Grafana Loki's infrastructure as code, so it's very easy to replicate in another environment, as it takes only a few minutes. It took a lot to develop the code, but once it was done, it was easy.

I use the solution's open-source version. Grafana Loki is a completely free solution for me.

For my use cases, Grafana Loki is a good tool.

I recommend people use the latest version of the product since the older version may have a few missing features.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

We are using Grafana Loki as a database for real-time metrics. Prometheus is responsible for pulling the metrics from the server, and we store those metrics in Grafana Loki. Grafana is the UI we see. Once we log in to the Grafana UI, we import the Grafana Loki database, which has all the metrics.

There are a few features in the solution's enterprise version that are not given in the normal basic version. Visualization-wise, Grafana Loki's dashboard looks a little outdated compared to other open-source visualization tools like Chronograf. Chronograf's dashboard is much more attractive, colorful, and easy to visualize.

I have been using Grafana Loki for one and a half years.

Grafana Loki is a pretty stable solution.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Our database is quite huge because we have more than 300 servers, and we have a data retention policy of around 90 days. We haven't faced any scalability issues with Grafana Loki. We keep increasing the number of servers. Around three to six servers are added every month.

In my previous organization, I used different tools like Telegraf, InfluxDB, Chronograf, and Kapacitor.

For a new person who has never used Grafana Loki before, it will take around two to three days to understand the setup, configuration, and installation.

Since we are using the open-source version of Grafana Loki, we are not paying anything for the solution.

We are creating multiple dashboards and panels for multiple use cases like CPU, memory, and I/O wait. We are using it for our infrastructure through which clients register to our images. We see in which region how many registrations were done, how much info was denied, and what normal info messages are there.

We have over 100 dashboards for each cloud, including Amazon, Azure, and Google. We monitor what's happening on our infra, how many clients have registered, how many have faced issues, what the issues were, and different error logs.

We are using Grafana Loki as a monitoring solution. If any of the servers are down, we start our debugging process by looking at the dashboard. We examine what went wrong and how many registrations failed and look at that time frame's logs. We view everything on Grafana. The database on the back end is Grafana Loki, and the metrics are pulled from Prometheus. All three tools go hand in hand.

One person is on call every week. We have on-call rotations for any kind of debugging. An engineer checks almost every day or every second day. We actively use the solution every second day to see what's happening on the infrastructure and the production environment and how things are going.

I would recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution to collect logs from our environment. We review them if there's any trouble in the system.

The product is easy to deploy. It has major compatibility features. The tool can be used in multi-cluster environments. Grafana Loki is the best possible solution in the market. It is a lot better than Elasticsearch.

The product must improve its UI. I have heard that Kibana is more friendly. It might be because of the speed at which the logs are generated, but it depends entirely on how the system is configured.

I have been using the solution for almost two years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. I am the only user. In my previous company, my whole team was using the solution.

The solution is deployed on both AWS and Azure.

The solution is open source. It makes things much easier. The enterprise version might require a license fee.

I recently changed jobs and am trying to get my new team to use Grafana Loki. They are currently using Elasticsearch. Considering the market, I would recommend the product to others. The deployment is easy, but the management is hard. However, it is far better than Elasticsearch. Overall, I rate the tool an eight or nine out of ten.

Our system primarily utilizes dashboards to cater to both developers and clients. For our clients, we present vital data, highlighting which endpoints are most frequented. These are the very endpoints that users engage with to retrieve predictions for their machine learning models.

We aimed to showcase the popularity of specific endpoints and the rate at which they return varying HTTP codes, such as 200 (success), 500 (internal server error), and 400 (bad request). Clients were keen on pinpointing any anomalies that suggested an endpoint was lagging in its assessment. Such insights were instrumental for both our clients and our team to discern system segments requiring optimization or enhanced alert mechanisms.

Incorporating other Grafana features, we integrated with Slack channels to pull metrics directly from system logs, subsequently crafting Grafana dashboards based on these logs. Alongside this, we employed Slack notifications to keep us updated. From the dashboard, I could glean comprehensive data such as the cumulative number of requests, their duration, requests segmented by response codes, the rate of these codes, an overview of multiple endpoints, and the frequency with which different models were invoked. This data encapsulated the essence of the information we aspired to collect.

I appreciate the capability to process logs from microservices and seamlessly integrate them into Grafana.

Our team encountered challenges with the dashboard preparation, particularly when crafting Loki queries, sometimes referred to as LogQL. These queries lacked intuitiveness.

Additionally, we operated on older versions of Grafana, Loki, and the backend host. Being a part of a single deployment chart with Prometheus, we faced several UI bugs that significantly hampered our experience. A notable issue was the absence of immediate feedback upon writing queries. The query language's sensitivity, especially concerning indentation and specific characters, made it cumbersome to draft. Omissions or minor errors led to vague error messages, offering little insight into rectifying the problem. Despite having a foundational query, adapting it to our specific needs was tedious.

While our dashboard and its queries functioned adequately, statistics reset when a Kubernetes pod restarted. This resulted in data inconsistencies, such as a continually increasing linear graph suddenly plummeting. Rectifying this issue was challenging due to unclear documentation about modifying Loki queries.

There's room for improvement in Grafana's query configuration tool. Although it provides a default setup, it lacks versatility, especially in our older version. A more robust debugging tool for queries would be beneficial.

Eventually, we transitioned to Datadog, a more comprehensive yet proprietary solution. Datadog offers integrations and pre-configured dashboards for services like AWS's RDS, which we found lacking in Grafana and Loki. The primary challenge with Grafana and Loki was the significant setup time required to achieve the desired functionalities.

I've been involved with the current project for almost three years. While I don't utilize this particular solution consistently, it has proven invaluable for certain tasks, especially monitoring. Our endeavor centers around developing a semi-ops platform, and monitoring represents just one facet of this extensive project. Presently, our attention has shifted slightly, as we've been concentrating on establishing various components, such as pipelines for processing machine learning workloads.

The system is fundamentally stable, though its reliability is contingent upon the stability of various system components. We encountered some challenges, likely stemming from outdated authorization or authentication methods we attempted to employ.

The solution is scalable. Currently, we are serving one client with a dedicated team working on it.

We didn't rely on any specific technical support for our needs. Instead, when questions arose, we consulted another team within our organization. Although they don't manage Grafana, they provide a variety of tools pre-installed on the AWS side. We typically addressed challenges ourselves, occasionally seeking insights from resources like GitHub issues. On a few occasions, we raised a ticket, and the support team assisted us in resolving our queries and issues.

Both Datadog and Grafana offer dashboards and storage panels. Having experience with Grafana, I currently don't see any features in Grafana that Datadog doesn't possess. While Datadog comes with a price tag, it compensates with a plethora of preconfigured tools. That said, Datadog isn't without shortcomings. After hands-on experience with both platforms, I find them remarkably comparable in various aspects.

Loki's setup was handled by the team that configured AWS for us. They established it using a deployment chart, essentially a YAML file detailing various configurations. I made adjustments to certain values, specifically for the frontend Loki pack, and undertook tasks necessary for other setups. The process was straightforward, as I recall.

While deploying with YAML files appeared seamless, our team wasn't in charge of the entire installation. Our involvement was primarily in tweaking some configurations, not the overall operation.

Maintenance for the system largely revolved around adjustments in authorization and specific configurations. Occasionally, we had to intervene directly due to the specificity of certain queries for particular time frames. This might stem from the fact that the tool we used was potentially not optimally coded. Periodically, we found ourselves revisiting and refining it, though it's possible the issues arose from our end or the tool's initial coding.

We opted to explore Grafana Loki, primarily drawn by its open-source nature.

When contemplating dashboarding tools, Grafana Loki stands out due to its beginner-friendly features. While novices might start with simpler tools, Grafana could be a preferred choice depending on integration needs. Given its ability to aggregate logs from diverse services and its integration with Kubernetes, Grafana sometimes emerges as the sole viable option.

For those venturing into Grafana, I'd advocate fully harnessing its features. Monitor metrics, such as API and memory usage, and delve into the specifics of Kubernetes products. Establish dashboards, configure alerts, and sync them with platforms like Slack for effective communication.

Leveraging the support of open-source communities can be invaluable—be it through initiating new GitHub discussions or scrutinizing existing ones.

It's also imperative to stay updated with Grafana. Outdated versions can pose challenges, from UI glitches to query and alert configurations. Regularly checking the change log helps in staying abreast of resolved issues.

While we deploy across multiple clusters, the differences are often minimal. We predominantly rely on a single deployment, with others remaining largely underutilized.

To encapsulate my experience, I'd assign Grafana Loki a score of seven out of ten.

The solution fixes system health issues and is useful for performance monitoring of critical infrastructures and business applications.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it is an open-source tool that is stable and flexible.

The solution has shortcomings regarding security monitoring-oriented features that need improvement.

I have been using Grafana Loki for a few years. I don't remember the version of the solution.

It is a stable solution.

The users of the solution in my company are between the range of 50 to 100.

My company has no plans to increase the use of Grafana Loki.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

A very low effort is required in the maintenance and setup phase of the solution.

The installation phase of the solution was carried out in-house with the help of our company's internal capabilities and resources.

I have experienced a return on investment from the use of Grafana Loki in my company.

My company doesn't need to pay for the licensing cost of the solution.

I recommend the solution to those who plan to use it since it is a flexible open-source monitoring tool.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

We use Grafana Loki monitoring, collecting metrics, creating dashboards, and setting thresholds for CPU memory, storage, and alerting. It’s used in a technical environment to manage and monitor system performance.

The product's most valuable features are ease of installation, management, and reporting. It has an efficient ability to set thresholds for alerts, as well. 

The platform's stability needs improvement. 

The online technical support is good. Whenever I encounter an issue, I can usually resolve it by conducting a quick online search, where community resources often provide clear and effective solutions

The setup can vary in complexity depending on the environment. For simple deployments, it’s straightforward, but integrating with other tools like Prometheus or Elasticsearch may require more effort.

I find the licensing structure quite reasonable, as the free license effectively meets my requirements.

I rate Grafana Loki a nine out of ten.