Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Software Operating Systems Windows

Log Analysis Tools for Windows? 37

FunkMonkey asks: "I administer a custom web app for my company (unfortunately, it's a Windows-only company -- servers and all), and I've been asked to find a web log analysis tool that our users can use to look at standard stats (number of visits/hits, etc.), as well as the ability to filter by authenticated users (including putting those users into groups). Additionally, the tool must be free or under $100.00, and be able to generate Excel (or Excel-compatible) reports. My app generates ECLF reports, so just about any web log analyzer should be able to read the logs themselves. I see this as a good opportunity to weasel some Open-Source stuff into the company. Any help you can offer -- suggesting apps, tips, forums to which I could post this question, etc. -- would be most welcome. Thanks in advance!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Log Analysis Tools for Windows?

Comments Filter:
  • Analog (Score:4, Informative)

    by henrik ( 98 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @10:34PM (#7941897)
    • Re:Analog (Score:3, Informative)

      Yes, Analog [], AWStats [], and Webalizer [] (here's Webalizer Win32 []) are the three packages that my web host installs for all its users.
      • Re:Analog (Score:4, Informative)

        by bjpirt ( 251795 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @07:09AM (#7943786)
        I currently use webalizer, but felt like it should be doing a lot more with the information in the log files. Hell, even I could spot more trends from just looking at the log file raw.

        So I took a look at AWStats and (although slower - it's written in perl not compiled c) it looks to have a lot more useful features.

        Usefully though, I came across this comparison chart [] comparing these three options plus another. Hope this helps.

  • PHP (Score:4, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @10:43PM (#7941939) Homepage Journal
    You can always turn on Windows IIS or install Apache. Then, install PHP. Then write some code to count the statistics you need. Once you're finished, you can give it away to the community, and it'll run on anything that can execute PHP!

    • Re:PHP (Score:2, Informative)

      by T-Ranger ( 10520 )
      How would php help at all?

      First of all; he already has logs. He asked about log analysis, not log creation. If you mean to insert a custom php function into every file dologline() or something, that would be a) slow, b) hard-to-impossible to implement on potentially thousands of files c) incompatable if he is using any other server generated pages. And it would miss static objects, images for example.
      If you mean, write your own log parser in PHP, again that would be both slow and painfull. PHP isnt patic

      • The poster means that one should use PHP to parse the Logs. It is quite possible and very easy to use it in such a manner. Its a pity that BBEdit doesnt run on x86 or I would suggest that but in all honesty anything that will allow you to use grep is essentially ideal for parsing logs. save as csv and any spreadsheet around wil open it fine. Best 3 things about grep? 1) Flexability 2) Speed 3) Price Oh and as to your statement that PHP is lacking in the 3rd party lib field? And you comment that php isn't v
        • If you using grep then your not using PHP. $usefull = system("grep $file"); does not count as using PHP. If you want to use the UNIX tool set, then use the UNIX tool set.

          PHP is not paticularly good at manipulating text. It is infinitly better then C, or Modula. But compared to gawk, sed... the unix toolkit, let alone Perl, it sucks. The PHP developers know this, and they have wraped up some of espically usefull features of Perl in to PHP functions... Things that Perl treats as natiave opearators. Compare e

          • did i say anything about perl vs php? No did i say php is or uses grep? no i didnt say that either.

            Oh and for the record .. I develop medical security and legal databases more secure than banking software and a hell of a lot larger than anything you have ever seen. How can I say that? Well deployed my last project was 27TB. Oh yeah and it was built using PHP does that qualify me as a php developer? Sheesh. Learn to read the whole post and don't immediately jump to conclusions. Are there better tools than p
            • Well, you didn't even bother to proof you post before you went off the handle. Perhaps next time you wish to sound like Gods gift to programming you should proofread what you post?

              *This post has NOT been proofread (It is late)*
          • >PHP:
            >$data = preg_replace("/hello/", "goodby", $data);
            >$data =~ s/hello/goodby/;

            What the hell does it matter how you *call* the function (aside from the PHP being clearer)? If you want to argue which is better, argue over the *implementation* of the replacing algorithm (which is probably going to be pretty much the same.)

            As far as I can recall, the PHP text functionality lies in the compiled C modules, not the top-layer modules written in PHP. I could be wrong.
            • =~ isnt a function. Its an opearator. Perl has string manipulation facilities buit into it at a very low level. PHP does not.

              PHP may be clearer, but that is because you (obviously) dont know what the =~ opearator does. Which, if you've never seen Perl code before, is quite resonable. Lets say you dont know what + does:

              Stupid example language:
              $i = add_values($i, 2);

              PHP (or Perl, C, Java...):
              $i = $i + 2;
              $i += 2;

              Assuming you dont know what + does, the first example is the most clear. The last ex

              • *breaks out the blackboard for drawing a picture*

                What I am saying is that it's irrelevant how the function is called. Using =~ instead of rx_replace() does not make a language better or worse suited for string manipulation. The algorithm used for the actual manipulation does. If Perl and PHP use the same algorithms, then they are by definition equally good in string processing.
    • did you notice the "for free or under $100" part.

      I don't know about you but $100 won't buy you much of my time.

  • Analog (Score:5, Interesting)

    by embo ( 133713 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @10:49PM (#7941972)
    You should look at Analog []. It is free, and open source. While it probably doesn't export straight to Excel, you would likely have two choices there:

    First, since it's open source, you could add support to export to CSV fairly easily.

    Second, Analog can export to what it calls "COMPUTER" output, which is designed for easy parsing. Couple the COMPUTER output with a little Python or PERL, and you'll have a CSV file fairly quickly.

    When you're finished looking at Analog, make sure you also consider Report Magic for Analog [] to make things look pretty in a browser.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 10, 2004 @11:00PM (#7942025)
    what are you getting paid for again?
  • by reynaert ( 264437 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @11:24PM (#7942122)
    Will you please do my job for me?
  • Excel (Score:4, Informative)

    by BladeMelbourne ( 518866 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @11:34PM (#7942162)
    FYI - many web applications that export to a .xls file, are simply creating an HTML document, (hopefully with tables in it), and changing the header so the browser does not think the file is text/html.


    Response.ContentType = "mime-type application/"
    Response.AddHeader "content-disposition", "attachment; filename=auto-gen.xls"

    You can also do the same to generate M$ Word files - although they dont need a table inside. These files can be opened in M$ Office and OpenOffice.

  • awstats (Score:3, Informative)

    by Shaheen ( 313 ) on Saturday January 10, 2004 @11:38PM (#7942183) Homepage
    I use AWStats [] on a home web server.

    It's written entirely in perl so it can work on Windows just fine as well. To see a sample go here [].
  • by Rocky ( 56404 )
    This was already invented a number of years ago.

    It's called PERL.

  • If the data isn't captured in the first place, getting a better analysis tool won't help.

    I'm spoiled with the feedback from Unix-style systems.

    That said, if there is a way to improve the volume and quality of what is being logged, I would appreciate hearing about it. (Yes, I've tweaked the default log settings for the system, and have enabled what I can for the apps I find. DR Watson is moderately useful when apps crash.)

  • by Jorkapp ( 684095 ) <> on Sunday January 11, 2004 @02:45AM (#7943072)
    Consider using Microsoft's Log Parser 2.x (2.1 Included in IIS 6.0, 2.0 availible as Download for Win2k/XP/2k3, and is only 2mb.

    It doesn't output to .xls files, but it does let you run SQL like queries against log files of any format. Its availible as command line and as a series of scriptable COM objects. di splaylang=en&familyid=8cde4028-e247-45be-bab9-ac85 1fc166a4
  • Some of these (Score:5, Informative)

    by $exyNerdie ( 683214 ) on Sunday January 11, 2004 @04:02AM (#7943345) Homepage Journal
    You can try some of these:

    For a detailed list of web log analyzers, go to this page. It has listing of various platform specific and platform independent analyzers: rs.html []

  • Absoulte (Score:2, Informative)

    Absolute [] log analyzer. exports to excel and many other things. Pro version is $250 but looks to be quite flexible.
  • Wusage [] is $25 for a single server, $75 for 5 domains, & $275 - unlimited. I think it's the best you can get -- available for all web servers and OS's, I think. I used it for years back when I was web-mastering. Have fun,


  • Do it yourself (Score:2, Insightful)

    by muleboy ( 123760 )
    So, basically you want someone to write something for you that works with all your proprietary programs so you can make money off of it? And you want them to do it for free or very little money?

    Good luck.

Someday your prints will come. -- Kodak