Understanding Log Lines Using Development Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Logs are generated by output statements that developers insert into the code. By recording the system behaviour during runtime, logs play an important role in the maintenance of large software systems. The rich nature of logs has introduced a new market of log management applications (e.g., Splunk, XpoLog and log stash) that assist in storing, querying and analyzing logs. Moreover, recent research has demonstrated the importance of logs in operating, understanding and improving software systems. Thus log maintenance is an important task for the developers. However, all too often practitioners (i.e., operators and administrators) are left without any support to help them unravel the meaning and impact of specific log lines. By spending over 100 human hours and manually examining all the email threads in the mailing list for three open source systems (Hadoop, Cassandra and Zookeeper) and performing web search on sampled logging statements, we found 15 email inquiries and 73 inquiries from web search about different log lines. We identified that five types of development knowledge that are often sought from the logs by practitioners: meaning, cause, context, impact and solution. Due to the frequency and nature of log lines about which real customers inquire, documenting all the log lines or identifying which ones to document is not efficient. Hence in this paper we propose an on-demand approach, which associates the development knowledge present in various development repositories (e.g., code commits and issues reports) with the log lines. Our case studies show that the derived development knowledge can be used to resolve real-life inquiries about logs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".