On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:31, Mark Kampe <mark.kampe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But binary logging: > 1. is much (e.g. 4-10x) smaller (especially for standard header info) > 2. is much faster to take (no formatting, less data to copy) > 3. is much faster to process (no re-parsing) > 4. is smaller to store on disk and faster to ship for diagnosis Binary logging is great, and certainly do-able. Here is what I think the negatives are: The method by which binary logs can achieve reduced sizes, especially when the bulk of the data is ascii-based context, is using schemas. For example, log the function name as an enum and extrapolate back to the readable form in post-processing. This is especially cumbersome for code bases with ad-hoc logging and lots of churn, as the schema must continually be maintained. -Noah -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
