Skip to main content

Ordering logs with different timestamp

Time is relative? Yes, it is. When you need to write Audit Data and Logs, you don’t want to have a relative time on different systems.
There are different protocalls for time synchronization like NTP that can help us to synchronize the time on machines. Unfortunately, based on firewall configuration or the type of access we have on that machines we might not be able to use NTP protocol.
Even if we are using NTP, depending on server configuration we can have a deviation of 1-2s between machines. A deviation of a few seconds might not be too much until you write logs and you try them to order them based on time. In this situation, reading the logs is not so simple – the logs order will not match with the execution order of the actions that were logged. Trying to understand what happen inside the system wil be hard.

If this is not enough, we might have cases when our application is running in different environments that are using different time servers. For example, we can have a group of systems that are running on Azure machines, another group of systems that are running on-premises and another set of machines from AWS. The time will not match perfectly. Each server  will have a small time difference.

Usualy all NTP servers are sync between each others, but still, there can be a small time difference. The biggest problem is with on-premises systems, where the deviation can be 1s or more.
What we could do in this situation? Our mission is to be able to order logs from a timeline perspective, in the correct order.
From the time perspective, logs that were generated by the same system can be ordered correctly using the time information.
Another important information that we have is that we know the flow of data and logic inside the system. This means that we know that a request is first processed by system A, after it will be processed by system B and so on.
Even if we have cycles in the flow between different system, we can consider that when the current requests arrives in a system where it was already, we can view it as a new system.
Using this approach, we define ‘gates’ inside our system that can be tracked and numbered. If each gate has a different number or id, we are able to order them based on this information. In this way we can put all our logs in only one repository, order them based on the system (gate) number and each group of logs can be ordered based on the time.
Different tracking ID of the request will help us to identify from the logs repository the request that we want to analyze.
In the end we will have the right order of our logs and we’ll be able to read them like a story. For complex scenarios, we might need to work a little more, but the main idea will remain the same.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to audit an Azure Cosmos DB

In this post, we will talk about how we can audit an Azure Cosmos DB database. Before jumping into the problem let us define the business requirement: As an Administrator I want to be able to audit all changes that were done to specific collection inside my Azure Cosmos DB. The requirement is simple, but can be a little tricky to implement fully. First of all when you are using Azure Cosmos DB or any other storage solution there are 99% odds that you’ll have more than one system that writes data to it. This means that you have or not have control on the systems that are doing any create/update/delete operations. Solution 1: Diagnostic Logs Cosmos DB allows us activate diagnostics logs and stream the output a storage account for achieving to other systems like Event Hub or Log Analytics. This would allow us to have information related to who, when, what, response code and how the access operation to our Cosmos DB was done. Beside this there is a field that specifies what was th...

Can User Technical Profile Influence AI Architecture Decisions?

In the last few days, I ran a small experiment on Devin/Windsurf/Cascade, BMAD, and LLM-based architecture decisions. The initial concern was simple: if an AI coding assistant knows something about the user, for example, that the user is a Java developer or a .NET developer, can this information influence the architecture and technology stack that the AI will propose? This question is important because many companies are starting to use AI tools not only for coding but also for product discovery, architecture, documentation, and technical decision-making. If the AI is influenced by the developer's personal profile, the result may not be fully neutral. It may look like a business or architecture decision, but in reality, it may be partially shaped by the context of the person using the tool. The test was done using BMAD with Devin/Windsurf/Cascade. The scenario was a unified field service operations platform. The task was to let BMAD refine the product, define the architecture and s...

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine: threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration: TeamCity .NET 4.51 EF 6.0.2 VS2013 It see...