Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 11th May 2013 21:41 UTC
Windows "Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 561327
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Too funny
by Alfman on Mon 13th May 2013 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too funny"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

satsujinka,

Text versus binary logging depends on what you want to do and what tools you have. Alas you are right that many binary formats don't provide good tools, and it's often necessary to pipe textual output out of them so they can be manipulated by text utilities. This obviously has no benefit over having used a text format in the first place.

Assuming that the "binary format" is actually a real database, then I *strongly* prefer querying data from a database over using textual tools to parse semi structured text records. I've worked on several projects where we logged activity into the database instead of using text files, and we've never found a reason to regret it. We get aggregates, indexing, calculations, sophisticated searching, easy reporting & integration. In certain cases it's necessary to populate the database by parsing text logs, and it makes me wish that all tools could log into database tables directly.

It's often trivial to export databases back into text format if you wanted to, but there's hardly ever a reason to do it since database facilities are so much better.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Too funny
by cdude on Mon 13th May 2013 05:35 in reply to "RE[5]: Too funny"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

The database is named filesystem. Binary dumps for logs? That is stupid like a binary config registry.

Edited 2013-05-13 05:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Too funny
by Soulbender on Mon 13th May 2013 06:14 in reply to "RE[6]: Too funny"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Binary dumps for logs? That is stupid like a binary config registry.


On the contrary, putting logs into searchable binary storage like ElasticSearch is great. Grep doesn't really scale.
Binary is not a good format for the default system logs though.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Too funny
by Alfman on Mon 13th May 2013 06:21 in reply to "RE[6]: Too funny"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

cdude,

"The database is named filesystem. Binary dumps for logs? That's more stupid then a binary config registry."

I'm finding it peculiar that you'd bring up a "named filesystem" database given that it doesn't apply to logfiles.


With a database, each record exists and is manipulated independently from all other records. You cannot use file system level operators (cd, ls, find, etc) to query log files or manipulate individual records. In order to get the same level of granularity that a database gives us, you'd have to store each "record" or log event in a separate file. Another major difference is that the database records can be indexed such that queries will only read in the records that match the criteria. A text log file on the other hand has no indexes and needs to be fully scanned.


Text processing programs like sed/grep/cut/sort/etc are great tools, but SQL is far more powerful for advanced analytics.

Edit: Also, the windows registry sucks, no disagreement there. But it's not right to put all databases in the same boat as regedit. The registry has a huge gap in analytical power and structure compared to any real database.

Edited 2013-05-13 06:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4