31 ms·
Question...why no mention of "change" logs? I'm curious as to why I don't see change logs mentioned often as an important overlay to general system logging. I
by ryeguy_24 4y ago
Question...why no mention of "change" logs? I'm curious as to why I don't see change logs mentioned often as an important overlay to general system logging.
I liken errors and debugs all related to heart beat and breathing rate but without information like "climbing stairs" or "changed medication", it may be hard to understand context or understand why new errors are being seen. The first question I would expect to ask when seeing logged issues, is what has changed recently that could be related to the new errors. Curious to hear thoughts on this?
I actually built software/startup related to the logging of changes (architecture change/software change/server restarts) but just didn't get traction and curious to know why it's not more interesting to people.
- guhidalg 4y agoAt $FORMER_EMPLOYER, we had a company-wide service that tracked changes of all kinds: source code changes, deployment changes, config changes, etc... It was useful because some changes are never reflected in YOUR logs, but they are reflected in someone else's logs. The systems that tried to do log change detection were all bad because the ML-driven clustering systems didn't produce interpretable information.
- adra 4y agoBecause these are probably better expressed as metrics. A good observation platform will try to weave all of these concepts together to form that picture you're describing. Some observation providers call these events or annotations. Theres a difficult cognitive dissonance for looking at a logged event and know that it's unusual or not. Some signals are in fact positively correlated with a failure, and some times it's just noise. Good tooling hopefully makes the distinction of these two options as easy as possible.