logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <c...@qos.ch>
Subject Re: Concurrency Appender Proposal
Date Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:58:41 GMT
At 01:51 AM 1/22/2005, Elias Ross wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 10:12, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> > Elias,
> >
> > Thank you for your proposal. Would it possible for you to backup your
> > proposal with prototype code? I'd be very interested in a comparative
> > study between an Appender using the current concurrency model and an
> > Appender following your improved model. A performance test involving
> > several threads would be quite appropriate.
> >
> > (Appender is an interface so one can easily swap implementations.)
> >
> > How does that sound?
>
>Sounds fantastic.
>
>I wrote some simple tests.  Here's some of the code using the old
>interface and the new one.
>
>       ConcurrentAppender ca = new ConcurrentAppender() {
>         protected void append(LoggingEvent event) {
>           try { Thread.sleep(1); } catch (InterruptedException e) {}
>         }
>         protected void internalClose() {}
>       };
>
>       AppenderSkeleton as = new AppenderSkeleton() {
>         protected void append(LoggingEvent event) {
>           try { Thread.sleep(1); } catch (InterruptedException e) {}
>         }
>         public void close() {}
>       };
> 
>Using 5 threads with 100 log statements, here's what I got (a 
>representative sample):
>
>      [java] AppenderSkeleton
>      [java] Appender class org.apache.log4j.concurrent.PerformanceTest$2
>      [java] Took 1066ms for 100 logs *  threads 5
>
>      [java] ConcurrentAppender
>      [java] Appender class org.apache.log4j.concurrent.PerformanceTest$1
>      [java] Took 288ms for 100 logs *  threads 5
>
>It's about 3-4 times as efficient.

What do these results prove, that you can clobber the output 3-4 times 
faster than outputting logs correctly? There are two side to this problem, 
the performance side and the safety side. Maybe you have the required grasp 
of both sides of the issue, but without the source code for what you have 
done, it's hard to tell.

>Is there some place to put a patch?

Please send your code to this mailing list.

>I also wrote new ConsoleAppender, WriterAppender versions.  They perform
>about the same as the old ones on a single processor machine, which
>isn't a surprising finding, but it's good to know they are just as fast.
>
>One thing I noticed was that Layouts were not thread-safe.  Most of the
>code time is spent in that class *.  I changed the PatternConverter
>class signature from:
>
>   protected abstract void convert(LoggingEvent event);
>
>to:
>
>   protected abstract void convert(StringBuffer sb, LoggingEvent event);
>
>and rewrote Layout in such a way that it is thread safe.  Obviously,
>there would be compatibility issues, which is why I am thinking of
>creating a separate Layout class to be used in this way.
>
>* According to my last run 87% of the CPU time was spent formatting.  So
>if you have 2 CPUs, 87% of the other CPU's time is waiting!

Since what you are doing is not clear, your enthusiasm, although nice to 
see, is hard to share.


-- 
Ceki Gülcü

   The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org


Mime
View raw message