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
files?

Perhaps this list membership is too exclusive?

Thanks,

Neil.

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 1996 11:25:16 UTC