To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hypnos,
"It's better software design for tools to be simpler by default, not more complex by default."
I'm on the fence. Text is more open. There's no need to reverse engineer anything or be dependent upon binary parsers, which makes using standard command line tools very practical.
On the other hand, I almost wish all data were stored in a database where we can easily build complex indexes and queries to our hearts content, all while maintaining relational & transactional integrity as needed. So, if they replace the text files with a real database such as sqlite or mysql, I wouldn't object much to that.
SQL is so second nature to me, it's much easier than trying to build scripts using bash/sed/grep/etc for anything complex. I hate escaping command line arguments for bash scripts. Searching indexed tables is so much faster than searching text files too.
This is not a defence for syslogd's proprietary tools, but I can see lots of benefits in using structured databases over text files.
Might want to look into Logstash. It's awesome.
Speaking of logstash, how does systemd's logging integrate with other tools? Can we easily transport the data to, say, logstash?
SQL isn't that well-suited for logs though. Not much relational data to speak of in a log record.
( mysql? real database? surely you jest
) Edited 2012-12-05 07:30 UTC





Member since:
2008-11-19
It's better software design for tools to be simpler by default, not more complex by default. This gives better maintainability and fork-ability, as well as fewer bugs and security problems.