Project: Vector (Observability and Analysis / Observability)
File: buffering-model.md

title: Buffering model weight: 2 tags: ["buffering", "buffers", "disk"] Vector implements a buffering model that allows operators to choose whether to prioritize performance or durability when handling an excess of events beyond what a sink can process. While operators typically strive to ensure their Vector deployments are appropriately sized for the expected load, sometimes problems can occur. Maybe an application starts generating more logs than normal, or the downstream service where you're sending data starts to respond slower than normal. Part of Vector's topology design involves propagating backpressure, which is a signal that events cannot be processed as quickly as they are being received. When one component tries to send more events to a component than that component can currently handle, the sending component is informed of this indirectly. Backpressure can travel all the way from a , up through any , back to the , and ultimately, even to clients such as applications sending logs over HTTP. Backpressure is a means of allowing a system to expose whether or not it can handle more work or if it is too busy to do so. We rely on backpressure to be able to slow down the consumption or acceptance of events, such as when pulling them from a source like Kafka, or accepting them over a socket like HTTP. In some cases, though, we don't always want to immediately propagate backpressure, as this could lead to constantly slowing down upstream components and callers, potentially causing issues outside of Vector. We want to avoid entirely slowing things down when a component just crosses over the threshold of being fully saturated, as well being able to handle temporary slowdowns and outages in external services that sinks send data to. Buffering is the approach that Vector takes to solve these problems. All components in a Vector topology have a small in-memory buffer between them. The primary purpose of this buffer is act as the channel that two components communicate over, but we take this a little further by ensuring that there is a small amount of space -- typically 100 events -- that can be used to send events even if the component on the receiving end is currently busy. This allows maximizing throughput when workloads are not entirely uniform. However, in order to provide protection against temporary overloads or outages, we need to provide a more comprehensive buffering solution that can be tailored for the given workload. When working with a Vector configuration, you'll be working with buffer configuration settings on sinks. The main reason for this is that, in practice, sinks represent the primary source of backpressure in a topology: talking to services over the network, where latency may be introduced, or outages may temporarily occur. By default, sinks use an in-memory buffer like all other components do, but the default buffer size is slightly increased, at 500 events. We've increased the buffer capacity for sinks specifically as, again, they are typically the primary source of backpressure in any given Vector topology. Beyond the default buffer capacity being larger, you can also fully control the buffer configuration as well. Vector exposes two main settings for controlling buffering: the type of buffer to use, and the action to take when the buffer is full. We've already talked about in-memory buffers. This buffer type, as you might be able to guess from its name, will buffer events in

In-memory buffers are the fastest buffer type, but they come with two main drawbacks: they can consume memory proportional to their size, and they're not durable. The fact that they consume memory is obvious, but it bears mentioning because it represents an important factor in capacity planning. In-memory buffers are configured in terms of how many events they can buffer, not the number of bytes they can hold. For example, an in-memory buffer configured with a maximum event count of 100,000 could potentially consume only a few megabytes if events were small, but could balloon to hundreds of megabytes if the events were in the kilobytes size range. This means that the memory usage profile might change substantially if the data being processed by Vector changes upstream and grows in size unexpectedly. The size of events is fluid, and based off the internal representation used by Vector. As a rule of thumb for capacity planning, you can estimate the size of an event by how large it would be when encoded to JSON, without any compression. Additionally, in-memory buffers are not durable. While Vector provides features like to ensure that sources don't acknowledge events until they have been processed, any events sitting in an in-memory buffer would be lost if Vector, or the host running Vector, crashed. While pull-based sources like S3 or Kafka would handle this by simply reattempting to process the events, push-based sources may not be able to retransmit their messages. When the durability of data is more important than the overall performance of Vector, disk buffers can be used to persist buffered events while stopping and starting Vector, including if Vector crashes. Disk buffers allow Vector to essentially pick up from where it left off when it starts back up again. Disk buffers function like a write-ahead log, where every event is first sent through the buffer, and written to the data files, before it is read back out. This may sound slow, but in practice, modern operating systems allow reads to happen out of memory, so disk buffers generally maintain high throughput on both the read and write path. By default, we do not synchronize data to disk for every write, but instead synchronize on an interval (500 milliseconds) which allows for high throughput with a reduced risk of data loss. We've designed disk buffers to provide consistent performance. While other projects may be able to write data to disk faster than Vector, we've chosen to make sure that events can be read as fast as they can be written, as well as reducing the tail latencies between an event being written and an event being read on the other side. Additionally, like in-memory buffers, disk buffers have a configurable maximum size so they can be limited in terms of disk usage. This maximum size is adhered to rigidly, so you can depend on Vector not exceeding it. There is a minimum size for all buffers, though -- currently ~256MiB -- which is a requirement of the disk buffer implementation. On the filesystem, disk buffers will look like append-only log files that grow to a maximum file size of 128MiB and are deleted once they have been processed fully. Storage errors are always a potential issue, whether due to hardware failures or data files being mistakenly deleted while Vector is

Disk buffers automatically checksum all events being written to disk, and when corruption is detected during a read, they will automatically recover as many events as can be correctly decoded. Disk buffers will also emit metrics when such corruption is detected, to give as accurate of a view into the number of events that were lost as it possibly can. {{< warning >}} Disk buffers have some unique monitoring requirements compared to in-memory buffers, specifically around free storage space. {{< /warning >}} I/O errors are notoriously hard to recover from, as it can be difficult to know what data made it to disk or not. In order to provide the durability guarantees that an event written to a disk buffer is safely on disk, Vector will forcefully stop itself when an I/O error occurs during flushing to disk. An error message will be emitted before exiting that explains the underlying cause of the error, such as "no storage space". Depending on the error, Vector can typically be safely restarted and it will attempt to recover whatever events are in the disk buffer that are not corrupted, but we cannot run that logic without reloading the buffers entirely, hence the forced process exit. As an operator, the main resource you'll need to monitor is free storage space. If Vector cannot write to a disk buffer because of a lack of free space, it must exit, as we can no longer be sure what data has been written to disk or not. You must ensure that the data directory configured for Vector (located within the global ) is on a storage volume with enough free space based on the total maximum size of all configured disk buffers. You must also ensure that other processes are not consuming that free space. While Vector will exit at startup if it detects your disk buffers could grow to a size bigger than the storage volume itself, it may not be able to detect that issue with exotic/unique storage configurations, and it also cannot detect if other processes are writing files that are consuming free space and stop itself from trying to continue to write to disk. As important as choosing which buffer type to use, choosing what to do when a buffer is full can have a major impact on how Vector as a system performs, and this behavior often need to be matched to the configuration and workload itself. When configured to block, Vector will wait indefinitely to write to a buffer that is currently full. This is the default "when full" behavior. This behavior is the default because it generally provides the intended behavior of reliably processing observability data, in the order it was given to Vector. Additionally, blocking will induce backpressure, which as we've talked about is an important signal to upstream components that they may need to slow down or shed load. Blocking may not be acceptable, however, if you're accepting data from clients and cannot afford to have them also blocked on waiting for a response that the data was accepted by Vector. We'll cover some common buffering scenarios (and configuration) further down. {{< warning >}} Using `drop_newest` with in-memory buffers is not recommended for bursty workloads, where events arrive in large, periodic batches. Doing so will typically result in the buffer being immediately filled and the remaining events being dropped, even when Vector appears to have available processing

{{< /warning >}} When configured to "drop newest", Vector will simply drop an event if the buffer is currently full. This behavior can be useful when the data itself is idempotent (the same value is being sent continually) or is generally not high-value, such as trace or debug logging. It allows Vector to effectively shed load, by lowering the number of events in-flight for a topology, while simultaneously avoiding the blocking of upstream components. {{< danger >}} Overflow buffers are not yet suitable for production workloads and may contain bugs that ultimately lead to data loss. {{< /danger >}} Using the overflow behavior, operators can configure a buffer topology. This consists or two or more buffers, arranged sequentially, where one buffer can overflow to the next one in the topology, and so on, until either the last buffer is reached (which must either block or drop the event) or a buffer is found with available capacity. Instead of being forced to use only an in-memory buffer, which is limited by available memory, or being forced to use only a disk buffer, which decreases throughput even if the sink is not experiencing an issue, we can use the overflow mode to preferentially buffer events by first trying to use an in-memory buffer, and only falling back to a disk buffer is necessary. Here's a snippet of what it looks like to configure a buffer topology to use the overflow behavior: ```yaml title="vector.yaml" sinks: overflow_test: type: blackhole buffer: type: memory max_events: 1000 when_full: overflow type: disk max_size: 1073741824 # 1GiB. whenfull: dropnewest ``` In this example, we have an in-memory channel with a maximum capacity of 1000 events overflowing to a disk buffer that can grow up to 1GiB in size, after which point it will drop new events until free space becomes available in the buffer. An important thing to note is that if space becomes available in the in-memory buffer, new events that Vector tries to buffer will go to in-memory buffer, even if there are still events in the disk buffer. Additionally, those new events in the in-memory buffer may be returned before older events stored in the disk buffer. There are no event ordering guarantees when using the overflow behavior for a buffer topology. Additionally, the last buffer in a buffer topology cannot be set to the overflow mode. Naturally, unless there is another buffer to overflow to, you must either block or drop an event when full. Below are a few common scenarios that Vector users often deal with and the recommended buffering configurations to use. I can't provide any storage to Vector. You'll have to use in-memory buffers then. Vector does not support buffering events to external storage systems. Performance is the most important factor. You should use in-memory buffers. As noted above, the `drop_newest` mode will provide the highest possible performance, but more events may be dropped than expected. Generally, increasing `max_events` and leaving the default blocking behavior is sufficient to handle higher event processing rates. Durability is the most important factor. You should use disk buffers. Depending on your sources, you may be fine to keep the default blocking behavior, or you may wish to also drop events when the buffer is full. As mentioned above, some sources are receiving data from clients directly, rather than pulling it on demand, and it might be better to simply drop the event rather than force the client to wait, which could cause issues further up the stack.