Re: Standard log file format - binary version?
>On Thu, 16 May 1996, N.G.Smith wrote:
>> What are people's thoughts on standardising on a binary version of the
>> Extended Log File Format?
>I think this needs to be sufficiently open so that the log can be fed
>directly into a database, preferably relational, preferably chosen by the
>site rather than by the server vendor. Not being a database person, I
>don't know whether the SQL "standard" specifies how data types are stored or
>leaves that to the vendors. If SQL data types are already standardized, I
>would vote for that. Otherwise, some "meta" standard that would enable us
>to use the database of our choice, plus an interchange standard for
>comparing different sites.
< snip >
>I think we're all headed in a similar direction, but we're looking at
>converting our logs to a database (probably mSQL) on a nightly basis. This
>will enable us index the important fields and use ordinary reporting and
>analysis tools to analyse them. Our problem is not so much the size of
>the logs as the time it takes to analyse them.
>I agree that the days of reading the logs by visual inspection are gone.
>James Calloway, General Manager http://www.nando.net
Other than this, a disappointing response on the binary log issue.
Is there anyone on the list who can answer the question as to whether
there is a standard binary database format?
Do other list members not see the problems associated with ASCII log
Perhaps this list membership is too exclusive?