I see. I walked away from the article with the impression that it was meant to be a log aggregation service a la flume, splunk, or logstash.

> the amount of data is low ("underwhelming") and from your last comment that it's a lot ("that much data").

I was remarking on the numbers in regard to generation, not consumption. Based on the article, my estimate is pointing out that generating 2.5TB/s of transactional logs and telemetry data using "millions" of machines would be technically possible but not reasonably practical...and thus likely not real ;). But, you corrected my understanding: That number isn't based on a different use case.