logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Logback performance improvements
Date Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:23:10 GMT
I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now
between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized
on the append method.

On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file
> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of
> OutputStream?
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing
>> list. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0
>> RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>
>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my
>> two MacBooks are at https://docs.google.com/spread
>> sheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only
>> way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather
>> interesting.
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It
>>> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and
>>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with
>>> 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which
>>> appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool
>>> to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and
>>> logback.
>>>
>>> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf to
>>>> compare your results to Ceki’s.  You also should capture the cpubenchmark
>>>> speed of your processor and get the speed of your hard drive. I used
>>>> Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing my results in a Google
>>>> spreadsheet. I will post the like once I have it.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows
>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know what args/command line...
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache" <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive
>>>>> category. With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>>>>>
>>>>> Benchmark                                         Mode  Samples
>>>>> Score       Error  Units
>>>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile        thrpt       20
>>>>> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
>>>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File     thrpt       20
>>>>> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
>>>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File     thrpt       20
>>>>> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
>>>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF      thrpt       20
>>>>> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
>>>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile    thrpt       20
>>>>> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything
>>>>> directly on bare metal any more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the
>>>>> FileAppender. See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html and
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qny
>>>>> ye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0. I suspect we have a
>>>>> few optimizations we can make.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>



-- 
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

Mime
View raw message