logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LMAX vs Lampart
Date Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:03:00 GMT
Hi Guido,

This is not on our radar AFAIK.

Your best bet would be to create a patch that makes that part of the code
pluggable with LMAX vs. Lampart, and then add to the benchmark module to
show the difference.

This is not a trivial task.

What we could discuss though is whether it is worth it for Log4j itself to
make this pluggable, in which case you contribution would be very helpful!

Cheers,
Gary
On Jan 25, 2016 9:00 AM, "Guido Medina" <oxyg3n8@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to test the current LMAX
> implementation vs JCTools specifically using the following class:
>
> I currently use them with Akka mailboxes, I tried LMAX once but with some
> CPUs LMAX disruptor was behaving a bit weird which is why I prefer
> Lamport's implementations of circular buffers that are very well known and
> in use by Netty, Akka, etc.
>
> Or I could try and contribute by changing the LMAX for JCTools:
>
> JCtools-core dependency:
>
> <dependency>
>     <groupId>org.jctools</groupId>
>     <artifactId>jctools-core</artifactId>
>     <version>1.1</version>
> </dependency>
>
> Specific class that would replace LMAX disruptor:
> https://github.com/JCTools/JCTools/blob/master/jctools-core/src/main/java/org/jctools/queues/MpscArrayQueue.java
>
> Best regards,
>
> Guido.
>

Mime
View raw message