logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>
Subject Performance tests log4j 1, logback, log4j 2
Date Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:06:28 GMT
Hi all,

I just run the PerformanceComparison test and it showed me that log4j
2 is the clear winner of the game. Then I runned it again... and
again... and again. The results were so different that I suddenly
realized that there is no comparison possible.

In total I made it 10 times and wrote all the results in this doc:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqmq9ym36L2DdHpsek1vN2xzVjdfS29idjcyTkFjVUE

I then summed up all the results, divided with 15 and get an average.
The average is like:

Log4j 1.x : 2314 ns
logback: 2116 ns
log4j 2.x: 2386 ns

The difference is pretty small. In the first runs logback performed
not so good, but in the latter runs logback was always better than the
rest.

That said, I think it is safe to say that all logging frameworks have
an excellent performance. logback performs slightly better with 200ns
in avg. But given the fact we are speaking of 10.000.000 debug calls I
would say this does not matter so much. With log4j 2 still in beta I
would think that we might improve performance a little more in time.

Any comments to this observation?

Cheers
Christian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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