Skip to content

Conversation

@castorsky
Copy link

@castorsky castorsky commented Jan 20, 2026

Parameter 'storage.max_chunk_size' introduced in the input_chunk module to provide the user with an option to configure maximum size for buffer chunks of input modules.

PR in the fluent-bit repo: fluent/fluent-bit#11373

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Updated Fluent Bit storage configuration documentation with improved table formatting and clarity.
    • Added new storage.max_chunk_size configuration option (default: 2M) for managing chunk sizes.
    • Reorganized storage configuration section with updated descriptions for better readability.

✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.

Parameter 'storage.max_chunk_size' introduced in the 'input_chunk' module to provide user option to configure maximum size for buffer chunks of input modules.

Signed-off-by: Castor Sky <csky57@gmail.com>
@castorsky castorsky requested review from a team as code owners January 20, 2026 01:05
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 20, 2026

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Documentation update to Fluent Bit's storage configuration section: reformats the storage configuration table with improved readability and adds a new storage.max_chunk_size configuration option with a default value of 2M, while retaining all existing storage parameters.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Documentation: Storage Configuration
administration/configuring-fluent-bit/yaml/service-section.md
Restructures storage configuration table with enhanced formatting; adds new storage.max_chunk_size parameter (default: 2M); updates descriptions and spacing for all storage configuration keys while preserving semantic content

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

🐰 A table once tight, now spreads its ears wide,
With storage settings organized with pride,
A new max_chunk_size joins the fold,
Documentation fresh, yet structured like gold! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The PR title accurately and concisely describes the primary change: adding documentation for the 'storage.max_chunk_size' parameter to the service section configuration table.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In `@administration/configuring-fluent-bit/yaml/service-section.md`:
- Line 38: Remove the invalid table row for `storage.max_chunk_size` (it is not
a Fluent Bit option); either delete that entry from the service-section table or
replace it with the correct setting `storage.max_chunks_up` and document its
meaning (limits the max number of in-memory chunks, default `128`) so the table
reflects valid Fluent Bit configuration options.

@eschabell eschabell self-assigned this Jan 22, 2026
@eschabell eschabell added waiting-for-user Waiting for user/contributors feedback or requested changes waiting-on-review Waiting on a review from mainteners 5.0 and removed 4.2.3 waiting-for-user Waiting for user/contributors feedback or requested changes labels Jan 22, 2026
Copy link
Collaborator

@eschabell eschabell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just the one new line added for the new config param, but table structure touched so looks like entire table changed. Looks good.

@eschabell
Copy link
Collaborator

@castorsky thanks for the docs PR, just waiting on the code PR to merge.

@eschabell eschabell removed the waiting-on-review Waiting on a review from mainteners label Jan 23, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants