| |||||||||||||
This depends on the design, actuallyThis depends on the design, actuallyPosted Nov 21, 2011 18:27 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: The Journal - a proposed syslog replacement by nix Parent article: The Journal - a proposed syslog replacement
But computers do. A binary->text tool would probably have given up in the face of such damage. At best it would go down a rarely-used hence buggy parser-error-recovery code path. Computers do what they are programmed to do. If you'll write program which tolerates corrupt files then it'll just that. It's not as hard to do as you think: you don't need cryptohash for that, CRC32 is enough and it's exteremely fast novadays. But sure, you must plan for that in advance. This is what Google does with it's petabytes of logs - works fine from what I've heard.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||