Data ingestion to splunk cloud using Lambda

by

Summary

Ingesting 1TB per hour (approximately 278 MB/s) to Splunk Cloud using AWS Lambda alone is fundamentally constrained by Lambda’s concurrency model and network egress limits, leading to predictable throttling and data latency. The root cause is not a configuration error, but an architectural mismatch: attempting to use a stateless, burst-optimized compute service (Lambda) for a high-throughput, sustained streaming workload without a decoupling buffer. The proposed restriction against using Kinesis or Heavy Forwarders (HFs) removes the standard enterprise mechanisms required to handle this volume, making the “vanilla Lambda” approach technically infeasible at scale.

Root Cause

The throttling errors observed are a symptom of hitting hard AWS Lambda service quotas and Splunk Cloud HTTP Event Collector (HEC) ingestion limits.

  • Lambda Concurrency Caps: Standard AWS accounts have a default On-Demand Concurrency limit of 1,000 concurrent executions. At 1TB/hr, if each Lambda invocation processes 1MB, you would theoretically need to sustain roughly 170,000 invocations per minute. Even with payload batching, the math requires concurrency far exceeding the default cap.
  • VPC ENI Bottlenecks: If the Lambda is deployed inside a VPC to access private S3 buckets or for security, the creation of Elastic Network Interfaces (ENIs) introduces cold starts and network throughput bottlenecks. A single ENI cannot saturate the bandwidth required for 1TB/hr.
  • Splunk HEC Rate Limiting: Splunk Cloud imposes ingestion rate limits based on your license. Aggressive parallel requests from thousands of Lambdas will trigger HTTP 429 (Too Many Requests) or connection timeouts from the Splunk side.
  • S3 Eventual Consistency & Throttling: While S3 scales, aggressively listing or reading millions of objects in parallel via Lambda triggers can trigger S3 Request Rate Limiting (404 Slow Down), further compounding delays.

Why This Happens in Real Systems

In distributed systems engineering, scale changes the behavior of the components. What works for 10GB/hr fails for 1TB/hr because of the shift from “boundless” compute to “hard-capped” infrastructure limits.

  • The “Function” Misconception: Engineers often treat Lambda as a replacement for a persistent server. However, Lambda is designed for discrete, short-lived tasks. Attempting to use it for massive data piping treats it like a thread pool, but without the sophisticated flow control of a message broker like Kinesis or RabbitMQ.
  • The “No-Buffer” Risk: By refusing Kinesis, you remove the shock absorber. Without a buffer, the ingestion speed is dictated by the slowest link (either the downstream Splunk HEC or the upstream S3 processing speed). If a downstream slowdown occurs, backpressure has nowhere to go but back to the Lambda concurrency pool, causing cascading failures.
  • Stateless Overhead: Every Lambda invocation incurs overhead (runtime startup, network connection handshake). At massive volume, this overhead consumes more resources (and money) than the actual data transfer, creating a negative ROI loop.

Real-World Impact

Attempting to sustain this architecture without standard scaling mechanisms results in severe operational degradation:

  • Data Ingestion Lag: The primary impact is data latency. Events generated at 10:00 AM might not appear in Splunk until 11:00 AM or later, rendering real-time security monitoring or operational dashboards useless.
  • Concurrent Execution Throttling: AWS will actively reject invocation requests once the concurrency limit is hit, resulting in lost data unless the Lambda has a retry mechanism with exponential backoff (which further increases latency).
  • Cost Inefficiency: High concurrency Lambdas run at high memory/CPU to process data fast enough, which drives up cost. You pay for execution time and the throttling penalty of retries.
  • Debugging Nightmare: Without a queue, tracing a specific failure is difficult. If a Lambda fails due to a transient network error, that specific payload is lost unless you have complex manual checkpointing logic.

Example or Code

There is no single configuration fix for this issue. However, the logic usually implemented in a naive Lambda attempt looks like this. The failure point is the Scale factor.

import boto3
import requests
import json

def lambda_handler(event, context):
    # PROBLEM: This function assumes it can process whatever is thrown at it
    # without checking if downstream (Splunk) can accept it.

    s3 = boto3.client('s3')

    for record in event['Records']:
        bucket = record['s3']['bucket']['name']
        key = record['s3']['object']['key']

        # Get object
        obj = s3.get_object(Bucket=bucket, Key=key)
        data = obj['Body'].read().decode('utf-8')

        # Batch events (simulated)
        events = data.split('\n')
        payload = "\n".join([json.dumps({"event": e}) for e in events if e])

        # PROBLEM: Sending directly to Splunk HEC.
        # At 1TB/hr, this loop will cause:
        # 1. Lambda Timeout
        # 2. Connection Errors
        # 3. Throttling from Splunk HEC
        try:
            headers = {'Authorization': 'Splunk TOKEN'}
            r = requests.post('https://inputs.splunkcloud.com:8088/services/collector', 
                            data=payload, headers=headers, timeout=5)
            if r.status_code != 200:
                # CRITICAL: No queuing mechanism here means data loss or infinite retry loops
                raise Exception("Splunk HEC Error")
        except Exception as e:
            raise e

How Senior Engineers Fix It

To achieve 1TB/hr without Kinesis or HFs, a Senior Engineer must introduce decoupling and asynchronous streaming. Since you cannot use Kinesis, you must use SQS (Simple Queue Service) combined with S3 Event Notifications.

The Architecture Shift:

  1. S3 Event Notification -> SQS: Instead of triggering Lambda directly, S3 pushes events to an SQS Queue.
  2. Lambda (Consumer) with Managed Concurrency: Configure Lambda to poll the SQS queue.
  3. Batching: Configure the Lambda Event Source Mapping to pull MaximumBatchingWindow and BatchSize (up to 10,000 messages).
  4. Fan-out: If SQS is not enough, use SNS Fan-out to multiple SQS queues, each feeding a separate Lambda function to bypass the concurrency limit of a single function.

If you strictly forbid Kinesis AND HF, the “Senior” recommendation is:

  • Use AWS Kinesis Data Firehose (The “Smart” Exception): You mentioned “no Kinesis,” but Kinesis Firehose is distinct from Kinesis Data Streams. It is a delivery service, not a raw stream. It handles buffering, batching, compression, and retry logic automatically. It is the industry standard for loading massive data into Splunk/S3.
  • If Firehose is also forbidden: Use S3 + SQS + Lambda with Reserved Concurrency. You must request a Service Quota Increase for Lambda Concurrency to handle the load (e.g., 5,000 to 10,000 concurrent executions). You must also implement exponential backoff in code to handle Splunk HEC rate limits.

Why Juniors Miss It

Junior engineers often fail to grasp the difference between Throughput and Latency, and the concept of Backpressure.

  • Treating Infrastructure as Infinite: Juniors often assume cloud resources (Lambda) scale infinitely by default. They don’t realize that concurrency limits are hard ceilings until they hit them.
  • Oversimplifying “Event-Driven”: They see “S3 triggers Lambda” as a magic black box. They miss that the trigger mechanism itself (the poller) has limits on how fast it can invoke functions.
  • Ignoring Downstream Limits: A common junior mistake is coding for the source data rate (S3 speed) but not coding for the destination speed (Splunk HEC). This results in a “firehose” hitting a “clogged drain.”
  • Underestimating Network Overhead: They underestimate the time it takes to open thousands of TLS connections to Splunk Cloud in parallel, leading to connection timeouts that they misinterpret as code bugs rather than infrastructure limits.