[kiyoto]

>We'd love to use a ruby-based solution like this, but the docs say it will lose data whenever the receiving end crashes. Any plans to fix that?

Where does it say this? I don't think this was ever the case for Fluentd.

>The way it was described in the docs gave me the impression there is no acknowledgement of network writes - if that's true won't even clean shutdowns lose data sometimes?

This is not true. All writes are acknowledged over TCP, at least between Fluentd and Fluentd.

[core0]

> Where does it say this? I don't think this was ever the case for Fluentd.

It's in http://docs.fluentd.org/articles/high-availability#forwarder..., which says:

However, possible message loss scenarios do exist:

The process [log forwarder’s fluentd from the paragraph above] dies immediately after receiving the events, but before writing them into the buffer.

Is this document out of date?

[kiyoto]

>Is this document out of date?

No, in the described case, the message can get lost. This is a really unlikely scenario though. The only real-world case that I know of first-hand is using file buffer and somehow being unable to write to disk, possibly because the disk is full. Something like that can be prevented by a fairly routine set of server monitoring alerts.