• Possibly linux
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    The thing with journalctl is that it is a database. Thus means that searching and finding things can be fast and easy in high complexity cases but it can also stall in cases with very high resource usage.

    • msage@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      But why?

      I just can’t grasp why such elementary things need to be so fancied up.

      It’s not like we don’t have databases and use them for relevant data. But this isn’t it.

      And databases with hundreds of milions of rows are faster than journalctl (in my experience on the same hardware).

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Thing is that they could have preserved the textual nature and had some sort of external metadata to facilitate the ‘fanciness’. I have worked in other logging systems that did that, with the ability to consume the plaintext logs in an ‘old fashioned’ way but a utility being able to do all the nice filtering, search, and special event marking that journalctl provides without compromising the existence of the plain text.

      • Possibly linux
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Plain text is slow and cumbersome for large amounts of logs. It would of had a decent performance penalty for little value add.

        If you like text you can pipe journalctl

        • msage@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          But if journalctl is slow, piping is not helping.

          We have only one week of very sparse logs in it, yet it takes several seconds… greping tens of gigabytes of logs can be sometimes faster. That is insane.