W&B Log Limit: How To Fix Validator Log Truncation

Hey guys! Let's dive into a common problem we've been facing with Weights & Biases (W&B) and how we can tackle it head-on. Specifically, we're talking about the pesky issue where W&B only displays up to 10,000 lines of logs per run. For those of us running validators that churn out a ton of logs daily, this limit can be a real headache, often making it impossible to view the latest log entries from long-running sessions. So, let's break down the problem, explore some solutions, and get those logs flowing smoothly again!

📝 Summary

Okay, so to recap, the core issue is that Weights & Biases (W&B) caps the display of logs at 10,000 lines per run. This becomes a major bottleneck when our validators, which are pretty chatty, generate volumes of logs that quickly surpass this limit. Consequently, we're unable to access the most recent and often the most crucial log data from extended sessions. This can hinder our ability to monitor performance, diagnose issues, and generally keep a close eye on what's happening under the hood. Therefore, finding a workaround is essential to ensure that we can effectively leverage our logs for continuous monitoring and debugging.

🎯 Goal

Our main goals here are pretty straightforward:

• ✅ Prevent loss of recent validator logs due to W&B’s display limit. We need to make sure we're not missing out on important information just because we hit the line limit.
• ✅ Ensure continuous monitoring and easier debugging for long-running validators. Having access to the complete log history is crucial for quickly identifying and resolving issues.
• ✅ Keep logs accessible without sacrificing performance. We want a solution that doesn't bog down our systems or make it harder to work with the logs.

⚙️ Problem

Let’s dig a bit deeper into the problem. The main pain points are:

• W&B truncates logs after 10,000 lines: This is the root cause. Once we hit this limit, the older logs are effectively hidden from view in W&B.
• Validator logs often exceed this limit in less than 24 hours: Given the volume of data our validators produce, it doesn't take long to hit that 10,000-line ceiling.
• This prevents reviewing new logs, especially during long-running operations or debugging: This is perhaps the most frustrating aspect. When we need to troubleshoot an issue that’s been developing over time, the most recent logs (which are most likely to contain the key information) are often inaccessible.

💡 Proposed Solutions

Alright, let's brainstorm some potential solutions to this logjam. Here are a few ideas we've come up with:

• Option 1: Rotate logs daily (start a new W&B run every 24h). This involves creating a new W&B run each day, effectively resetting the log counter. This way, we'd only ever be looking at a maximum of 24 hours' worth of logs in any single run. This ensures that the latest logs are always visible within the 10,000-line limit.

  Pros: This is relatively simple to implement and ensures that the latest logs are always viewable within the W&B interface. It provides a clean break between log sessions, making it easier to isolate issues within specific timeframes. It's also beneficial for tracking daily performance metrics, as each run represents a single day's activity.

  Cons: We will lose the continuity of a single, long-running session. Analyzing trends over extended periods may require aggregating data from multiple runs. The frequent creation of new runs may also add overhead to the W&B platform. It is not suitable for validators that require a continuous, uninterrupted view of logs spanning several days or weeks. If the root cause lies in historical data, pinpointing the issue might necessitate sifting through numerous daily runs.

• Option 2: Stream logs to both W&B and a local file for full retention. This approach involves sending all log data to both W&B and a local file (or a more robust storage solution like S3). W&B would still be subject to the 10,000-line limit, but the local file would contain the complete log history.

  Pros: It guarantees full retention of all logs, allowing for comprehensive analysis and historical tracking. The local file serves as a backup, safeguarding against data loss in case of issues with W&B. The combined approach offers both the convenience of W&B for recent logs and the completeness of local storage for long-term analysis. Additionally, it can be customized to suit specific needs, such as integrating with existing storage solutions.

  Cons: Requires additional storage infrastructure and management for the local file. Searching and analyzing logs in the local file may be less convenient than using W&B's interface. There may be performance overhead associated with writing logs to two different locations simultaneously. Also, it does not fully address the W&B limit issue; users must switch between W&B and local files to access complete data.

• Option 3: Reduce log verbosity or filter only key events for W&B. This involves reducing the amount of information logged or only sending the most critical events to W&B. This would keep the log volume within the 10,000-line limit, but it would also mean sacrificing some detail.

  Pros: Simplifies the logging process by focusing on essential information, reducing noise and clutter. It addresses the W&B limit issue directly by ensuring that logs remain within the allowable line count. There is also a reduced storage and bandwidth usage, leading to improved performance.

  Cons: Important details could be missed if the filtering is too aggressive. It will require careful consideration and configuration to determine which events are truly critical. Moreover, it may hinder debugging efforts if essential context is omitted. Therefore, this solution is not suitable for scenarios requiring granular log data.

• Option 4: Send summaries to W&B (aggregated metrics), full logs to disk or S3. With this approach, send aggregated metrics and summaries to W&B, while storing the full, detailed logs to a persistent storage solution like disk or S3. This keeps W&B uncluttered with concise, high-level insights, while retaining full log data for in-depth analysis.

  Pros: Allows for a high-level overview in W&B, which makes it easier to spot trends and anomalies. There's full log data available for detailed investigation when needed. The reduced W&B log volume means less noise and faster loading times. Additionally, it aligns with best practices for monitoring and debugging complex systems.

  Cons: Requires additional infrastructure and setup for storing and managing the full logs. It may require more effort to correlate the summary data in W&B with the detailed logs. You would also need proficiency in setting up data pipelines for aggregation and storage. This solution is more complex to implement compared to simple log rotation or reduction.

✅ Acceptance Criteria

Before we declare victory, we need to make sure our solution meets these criteria:

• [ ] Implement log rotation or segmented W&B runs.
• [ ] Ensure latest validator logs are always viewable.
• [ ] Prevent log truncation without overloading W&B.
• [ ] Document logging configuration and retention policy.

🧱 Tasks

To get there, we'll need to tackle these tasks:

• [ ] Add configurable log rotation (time or line-based).
• [ ] Implement hybrid logging (W&B + file).
• [ ] Add summary-level logging for long runs.
• [ ] Test validator log continuity after rotation.
• [ ] Update docs (MONITORING.md, LOGGING.md).

🏁 Outcome

If we nail this, our validators will have continuous, viewable logs in W&B without those annoying truncation issues. This means better monitoring, debugging, and transparency – all of which will make our lives a whole lot easier! 🙌