On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 08:55:32AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 04:38:10 AM tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > There are valid reasons for systemd's binary format. Space savings > > is very far off the top of the list (probably it isn't on that list > > at all). > > Can you (or someone else) elaborate on that a little? Strictly defined structure instead of parsing. Indexing, so you can easily cross-reference logs. Support for cryptographic integrity (think blockchain). You might think these features are worth the complexity or they aren't, but assuming the designers are idiots is wrong on more than one level. > (Aside: I don't (yet -- or at least not intentionally) use systemd (well, or > have any trouble / interaction with it -- I suppose it might have been > installed on either my Jessie or Buster installs by default, and I haven't had > to dig into those logs, so don't know if they're readable.) I can't check right now, but AFAIK Debian's default config forwards the binary logs to something logging in text, to be backwards compatible (to oldish sysadmins, like me ;-) Cheers -- t >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature