<rss xmlns:webfeeds="http://webfeeds.org/rss/1.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
  <channel>
  <atom:link href="https://nxlog.co/news-and-blog/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
  <title>Telemetry pipeline management</title>
    <link>https://nxlog.co/news-and-blog/tags/telemetry-pipeline-management/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Telemetry pipeline management on NXLog Blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
  <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
  
  <item>
    <title>Filebeat vs Logstash: when the shipper is enough and when you need a pipeline</title>
    <link>https://nxlog.co/news-and-blog/posts/filebeat-vs-logstash/</link>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
    
    <enclosure url="https://nxlog.co/news-and-blog/images/categories/comparison.png" type="image/webp" />
    <atom:logo>https://nxlog.co/news-and-blog/images/categories/comparison.png</atom:logo>
    
    <guid>https://nxlog.co/news-and-blog/posts/filebeat-vs-logstash/</guid>
    <description>
    
    &lt;img src=&#34;https://nxlog.co/news-and-blog/images/categories/comparison.png&#34; width=500 /&gt;
    
    The choice here is not between two interchangeable log tools. It is a choice about where you want parsing, routing, and failure handling to live. Filebeat runs close to the source and keeps collection small. Logstash sits in the middle of the flow and takes on filtering, enrichment, and fan-out.
That architectural difference matters more than a feature checklist. Pick the narrower tool when your logs have one destination and your parsing rules are modest.
    </description>
    
    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ João Correia ]]></dc:creator>
    
  </item>
   
  </channel>
</rss>
