Cloud Provider
GCP Cloud Logging
Inefficiency Type
Clear filters
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Showing
1234
out of
1234
inefficiencis
Filter
:
Filter
x
Suboptimal Storage for Logs
Other
Cloud Provider
GCP
Service Name
GCP Cloud Logging
Inefficiency Type
Misaligned Storage Destination

Many organizations retain all logs in Cloud Logging’s standard storage, even when the data is rarely queried or required only for audit or compliance. Logging buckets are priced for active access and are not optimized for low-frequency retrievas, results in unnecessary expense. Redirecting logs to BigQuery or Cloud Storage can provide better cost efficiency, particularly when coupled with lifecycle policies or table partitioning. Choosing the optimal storage destination based on access frequency and analytics needs is essential to control log retention costs.

Resources Generating Excessive INFO Logs
Other
Cloud Provider
GCP
Service Name
GCP Cloud Logging
Inefficiency Type
Excessive Log Verbosity

Some GCP services and workloads generate INFO-level logs at very high frequencies — for example, load balancers logging every HTTP request or GKE nodes logging system health messages. While valuable for debugging, these logs can flood Cloud Logging with non-critical data. Without log-level tuning or exclusion filters, organizations incur continuous ingestion charges for messages that are seldom analyzed. Over time, this behavior compounds into a persistent waste driver across large-scale environments.

Logging Buckets in Non-Production Environments Storing Info Logs
Other
Cloud Provider
GCP
Service Name
GCP Cloud Logging
Inefficiency Type
Excessive Ingestion of Low-Value Logs

Non-production environments frequently generate INFO-level logs that capture expected system behavior or routine API calls. While useful for troubleshooting in development, they rarely need to be retained. Allowing all INFO logs to be ingested and stored in Logging buckets across dev or staging environments can lead to disproportionate ingestion and storage costs. This inefficiency often persists because log routing and severity filters are not differentiated between production and non-production projects.

Duplicate Storage of Logs in Cloud Logging
Other
Cloud Provider
GCP
Service Name
GCP Cloud Logging
Inefficiency Type
Redundant Log Routing Configuration

Duplicate log storage occurs when multiple sinks capture the same log data — for example, organization-wide sinks exporting all logs to Cloud Storage and project-level sinks doing the same. This redundancy results in paying twice (or more) for identical data. It often arises from decentralized logging configurations, inherited policies, or unclear ownership between teams. The problem is compounded when logs are routed both to Cloud Logging and external observability platforms, creating parallel ingestion streams and double billing.

Excessive Retention of Logs in Cloud Logging
Other
Cloud Provider
GCP
Service Name
GCP Cloud Logging
Inefficiency Type
Excessive Retention of Non-Critical Data

By default, Cloud Logging retains logs for 30 days. However, many organizations increase retention to 90 days, 365 days, or longer — even for non-critical logs such as debug-level messages, transient system logs, or audit logs in dev environments. This extended retention can lead to unnecessary costs, especially when: * Logs are never queried after the first few days * Observability tooling duplicates logs elsewhere (e.g., SIEM platforms) * Retention settings are applied globally without considering log type or project criticality

There are no inefficiency matches the current filters.