Cited by 985Software System Performance and ReliabilityAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesCloud Computing and Resource Management

Drain: an online log parsing approach with fixed depth tree

He, Pinjia, Zhu, Jieming, Zheng, Zibin, Lyu, Michael R.·2017·2017 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS)

Abstract

Logs, which record valuable system runtime information, have been widely employed in Web service management by service providers and users. A typical log analysis based Web service management procedure is to first parse raw log messages because of their unstructured format; and then apply data mining models to extract critical system behavior information, which can assist Web service management. Most of the existing log parsing methods focus on offline, batch processing of logs. However, as the volume of logs increases rapidly, model training of offline log parsing methods, which employs all existing logs after log collection, becomes time consuming. To address this problem, we propose an online log parsing method, namely Drain, that can parse logs in a streaming and timely manner. To accelerate the parsing process, Drain uses a fixed depth parse tree, which encodes specially designed rules for parsing. We evaluate Drain on five real-world log data sets with more than 10 million raw log messages. The experimental results show that Drain has the highest accuracy on four data sets, and comparable accuracy on the remaining one. Besides, Drain obtains 51.85%~81.47% improvement in running time compared with the state-of-the-art online parser. We also conduct a case study on an anomaly detection task using Drain in the parsing step, which determines the effectiveness of Drain in log analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icws.2017.13

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The evidence trace makes the agent's reasoning inspectable: a reviewer can see which logs, metrics, traces, tickets, configurations, validators, or simulators were queried, and whether the resulting evidence was sufficient for the proposed diagnosis or action.

    “This makes the agent's reasoning inspectable: a reviewer can see which logs, metrics, traces, tickets, configurations, validators, or simulators were queried, and whether the resulting evidence was sufficient for the proposed diagnosis or action [77], [60], [78], [61], [25].”
  • Modern production diagnosis is fundamentally query-driven, and good teams treat incident response as repeated hypothesis testing under partial observability.

    “First, modern production diagnosis is fundamentally query-driven, and good teams treat incident response as repeated hypothesis testing under partial observability [4], [78], [84].”
  • Production debugging systems are used in practice through writing a discriminating query, refining the candidate set, and then writing the next query.

    “This framing aligns well with how production debugging systems are used in practice, through writing discriminating query, refine the candidate set, and then write the next query [78], [61], [53], [54].”
  • Log processing faces high computing overhead from template conversion via parsing algorithms like Drain, and real-time processing pressure from explosive log volume during fault concurrency.

    “they face two key challenges: high computing overhead from template conversion via parsing algorithms like Drain, and real-time processing pressure from explosive log volume during fault concurrency, making processing efficiency the system bottleneck.”
  • Industry widely adopts online clustering algorithms based on parse trees such as Drain, which compress data dimensions efficiently but have insufficient discrimination for templates with high semantic similarity.

    “The industry widely adopts online clustering algorithms based on parse trees such as Drain [9] , which can compress data dimensions efficiently but has insufficient discrimination for templates with high semantic similarity.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
He, P., Zhu, J., Zheng, Z., & Lyu, M. R.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
Venue
2017 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-06
Pages
33-40
OpenAlex
W2754665629
Cited by
943
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 164 · 2025: 184 · 2024: 184 · 2023: 157 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2
FWCI
17.22
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Database Systems and Queries
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
Keywords
log parsing, online parsing, log analysis, web service management, anomaly detection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review