Grepping logs is still terrible
asylum.madhouse-project.org
Grepping logs is still terrible
1–10 of 124 posts
Re: Grepping logs is still terrible
#2Here is the thing he doesn't seem to understand - all of us who are sysadmins absolutely understand the value of placing complex and large log files into database so that we can query them efficiently. We also understand why having multi-terabyte text log files is not useful.
But what we find totally unacceptable is log files being shoved into binary repositories as the primary storage location. Because you know what everyone has their own idea of what that primary storage location should be, and they are mostly incompatible with each other.
The nice thing about text - for the last 40 years it's been universally readable, and will be for the next 40 years. Many of these binary repositories will be unreadable within a short period, and will be immediately unreadable to those people who don't know the magic tool to open them.
Re: Grepping logs is still terrible
#3That’s a straw man. If you’re grepping logs, you don’t need a regular expression that matches only valid dates because you can assume that the timestamps on the log records are valid dates. But I suppose
2013-12-(2[4-9]|3.)|2014-..-..|2015-0([123]-..|4-(0.|1[01]))
doesn’t look so bad.The whole thing is similarly exaggerated.
Re: Grepping logs is still terrible
#4For me the main reason to access plaintext logs is they seldom fail, and they are simple. They are a bore to analyse, they CAN be analysed.
Anyway, this discussion only makes sense if the task at hand involves heavy log analysis, don't complicate what is simple when it isn't needed.
As for the razor analogy, you're right, however I wouldn't change my beard to be "razor compatible only". In the software world I'd say it is still not uncommon to find yourself "stranded in a desert island".
Re: Grepping logs is still terrible
#5> For example: find all logs between 2013-12-24 and 2015-04-11, valid dates only. That’s a straw man. If you’re grepping logs, you don’t need a regular expression that matches only valid dates because you can assume that the timestamps on the log records are valid dates. But I suppose 2013-12-(2[4-9]|3.)|2014-..-..|2015-0([123]-..|4-(0.|1[01])) doesn’t look so bad. The whole thing is similarly exaggerated.
Re: Grepping logs is still terrible
#6This is really the important point here. For small systems, grep works fine. The number of people administering small systems is much greater than the number of people administering large systems. The systemd controversy has caused people to fear that change they don't want will be imposed on them and their objections insultingly dismissed: a consequence of incredibly bad social "change management" by its proponents.
They are therefore deploying pre-emptive rhetorical covering fire against the day when greppable logs will be removed from the popular Linux distributions. Plain text is the lingua franca; binary formats bind you to their tools with a particular set of design choices, bugs and disadvantages. My adhoc log grepping workflow has a different set of bugs and disadvantages, but they're mine.
Re: Grepping logs is still terrible
#7It's beyond me how he doesn't understand that text logs are a universal format, easily accessible, that can be instantly turned into whatever binary format you desire with a highly efficient insertion process (Splunk is just one of those that does a great job). Here is the thing he doesn't seem to understand - all of us who are sysadmins absolutely understand the value of placing complex and large log files into data…
Re: Grepping logs is still terrible
#8It's beyond me how he doesn't understand that text logs are a universal format, easily accessible, that can be instantly turned into whatever binary format you desire with a highly efficient insertion process (Splunk is just one of those that does a great job). Here is the thing he doesn't seem to understand - all of us who are sysadmins absolutely understand the value of placing complex and large log files into data…
Uh, I don't know what world you live in but I'd like the address because mine sucks in comparison.
Text logs are definitely not a "universal format". Easily accessible, sure. Human readable most of the time? Okay. Universal? Ten times nope.
Give you an example: uwsgi logs don't even have timestamps, and contain whatever crap the program's stdout outputs, so you often end up with three different types of your "universal format" in there. I'm not giving this example because it's contrived, but because I was dealing with it the very moment I read your comment.