|
LogAnalysis
Re: Re: [logs] regexless parsing, again? Sep 18 2007 04:51PM Marcus J. Ranum (mjr ranum com) (2 replies) Re: Re: [logs] regexless parsing, again? Sep 20 2007 12:59AM Mordechai T. Abzug (morty frakir org) (2 replies) Re: [logs] regexless parsing, again? Sep 20 2007 02:07PM Mike Heisler (mgh4 cornell edu) (2 replies) RE: [logs] regexless parsing, again? Sep 20 2007 07:31PM Rainer Gerhards (rgerhards hq adiscon com) (1 replies) Re: [logs] regexless parsing, again? Sep 24 2007 10:30PM Anton Chuvakin (anton chuvakin org) (3 replies) RE: [logs] regexless parsing, again? Sep 27 2007 04:41PM Eric Fitzgerald (Eric Fitzgerald microsoft com) (1 replies) Re: Re: [logs] regexless parsing, again? Sep 19 2007 04:58PM E G (bronc94583 yahoo com) (4 replies) RE: Re: [logs] regexless parsing, again? Sep 19 2007 06:40PM Tina Bird (tbird precision-guesswork com) |
|
Privacy Statement |
I jump in this thread without having read all before (was busy with
other things the past days).
I basically agree, but, as you say, the problem is there will be no
standard soon. The IETF netconf working groupd might be seeding a new,
XML based approach, which in the looooong term could become such a
standard. But even there, data modeling efforts have a very hard start.
Rainer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: loganalysis-bounces (at) loganalysis (dot) org [email concealed] [mailto:loganalysis-
> bounces (at) loganalysis (dot) org [email concealed]] On Behalf Of Mordechai T. Abzug
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:59 AM
> To: Marcus J. Ranum
> Cc: Desai, Ashish; loganalysis (at) loganalysis (dot) org [email concealed]
> Subject: Re: Re: [logs] regexless parsing, again?
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:51:13PM -0400, Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
>
> > >> There have been some amazing advances in hardware to do PCRE.
>
> > That'd the the "hardware turbo-charged lipstick on a pig" option.
>
> Even parsing is lipstick on a pig. The correct solution is to
> redesign all log systems so log events are structured, and come with
> machine-readable catalogs, a la SNMP trap. [Yes, SNMP sucks in
> general, but the SNMP community dodged most log analysis problems 10+
> years ago, such that SNMP analysis solutions have been ahead of syslog
> analysis solutions for many years, IME.]
>
> Too bad unstructured syslog isn't going to go away any time soon. Any
> attempt to analyze unstructured data is "lipstick on a pig" compared
> to importing vendor log catalogs in a machine-readable, vendor-neutral
> format (such as *spit* ASN.1 *spit*). Whether you use regexes,
> parsing, hybrid multi-layer techniques, or a rigidly structured format
> with event catalogs, it's all a trade-off between log analysis system
> design complexity, log analysis system performance, log analysis user
> burden, log compatibility with "legacy" log systems, and comfort of
> the developers generating the logs.
>
> [Cue a bunch of starry-eyed innocents talking up CEE, CEF, and other
> "standards" that are supposed to make unstructured logs go away Real
> Soon Now.]
>
> - Morty
> _______________________________________________
> LogAnalysis mailing list
> LogAnalysis (at) loganalysis (dot) org [email concealed]
> http://www.loganalysis.org/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
_______________________________________________
LogAnalysis mailing list
LogAnalysis (at) loganalysis (dot) org [email concealed]
http://www.loganalysis.org/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
[ reply ]