logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Would it be worth it to make the BlockingQueue implementation configurable in AsyncAppender?
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:14:44 GMT
Very nice numbers!
I think this would be a great addition to Log4j 2. 

As with any improvement that is performance-centric, we should add a section to the Performance
page that compares the new capability to the previous options. It would be great if we can
run these benchmarks for a number of threads and show the result in a graph. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2016/06/16, at 1:24, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Using the 4 threads versions of the benchmarks, here's what I've found:
> 
> ArrayBlockingQueue:
> 
> Benchmark                                                       Mode  Samples       
Score       Error  Units
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput10Params    thrpt       20  1101267.173
± 17583.204  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput11Params    thrpt       20  1128269.255
± 12188.910  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput1Param      thrpt       20  1525470.805
± 56515.933  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput2Params     thrpt       20  1789434.196
± 42733.475  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput3Params     thrpt       20  1803276.278
± 34938.176  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput4Params     thrpt       20  1468550.776
± 26402.286  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput5Params     thrpt       20  1322304.349
± 22417.997  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput6Params     thrpt       20  1179756.489
± 16502.276  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput7Params     thrpt       20  1324660.677
± 18893.944  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput8Params     thrpt       20  1309365.962
± 19602.489  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput9Params     thrpt       20  1422144.180
± 20815.042  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughputSimple      thrpt       20  1247862.372
± 18300.764  ops/s
> 
> 
> 
> DisruptorBlockingQueue:
> 
> Benchmark                                                       Mode  Samples       
Score        Error  Units
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput10Params    thrpt       20  3704735.586
±  59766.253  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput11Params    thrpt       20  3622175.410
±  31975.353  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput1Param      thrpt       20  6862480.428
± 121473.276  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput2Params     thrpt       20  6193288.988
±  93545.144  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput3Params     thrpt       20  5715621.712
± 131878.581  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput4Params     thrpt       20  5745187.005
± 213854.016  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput5Params     thrpt       20  5307137.396
±  88135.709  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput6Params     thrpt       20  4953015.419
±  72100.403  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput7Params     thrpt       20  4833836.418
±  52919.314  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput8Params     thrpt       20  4353791.507
±  79047.812  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput9Params     thrpt       20  4136761.624
±  67804.253  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughputSimple      thrpt       20  6719456.722
± 187433.301  ops/s
> 
> 
> 
> AsyncLogger:
> 
> Benchmark                                                Mode  Samples         Score
       Error  Units
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput10Params    thrpt       20   5075883.371
± 180465.316  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput11Params    thrpt       20   4867362.030
± 193909.465  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput1Param      thrpt       20  10294733.024
± 226536.965  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput2Params     thrpt       20   9021650.667
± 351102.255  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput3Params     thrpt       20   8079337.905
± 115824.975  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput4Params     thrpt       20   7347356.788
±  66598.738  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput5Params     thrpt       20   6930636.174
± 150072.908  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput6Params     thrpt       20   6309567.300
± 293709.787  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput7Params     thrpt       20   6051997.196
± 268405.087  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput8Params     thrpt       20   5273376.623
±  99168.461  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput9Params     thrpt       20   5091137.594
± 150617.444  ops/s
> 
> o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughputSimple      thrpt       20  11136623.731
± 400350.272  ops/s
> 
> 
> 
> So while the Conversant BlockingQueue implementation significantly improves the performance
of AsyncAppender, it looks like AsyncLogger is still faster.
> 
> 
>> On 15 June 2016 at 10:43, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm gonna play with the microbenchmarks and see what I find number-wise. I'll return
with some results.
>> 
>>> On 15 June 2016 at 10:33, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There's a much smaller disruptor library: <https://github.com/conversant/disruptor>
which implements BlockingQueue. I'm not sure how it compares in performance to LMAX (it's
supposedly better on Intel machines), but it might be worth looking into as an alternative
(or at least making a BlockingQueueFactory like Camel does for its SEDA component).
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

Mime
View raw message