logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com>
Subject Re: Logback performance improvements
Date Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:05:33 GMT
I guess that with a memory mapped file, you leave it to the OS to do the
best it can, and you lose any direct control over how it is actually done.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> On my Mac Pro with the slower external SSD I now got:
>
> Benchmark                                         Mode  Samples     Score
>     Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile        thrpt       10    73.739
> ±   0.740  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File     thrpt       10   683.129
> ±   9.407  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File     thrpt       10   991.293
> ± 193.049  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF      thrpt       10  3072.250
> ±  63.475  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF      thrpt       10  1056.256
> ± 137.673  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile    thrpt       10   784.723
> ± 153.226  ops/ms
>
> and on the same machine with the faster internal SSD I got:
>
> Benchmark                                         Mode  Samples     Score
>     Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile        thrpt       10    74.661
> ±   0.232  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File     thrpt       10   647.041
> ±   2.994  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File     thrpt       10  1333.887
> ±  13.921  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF      thrpt       10  3025.726
> ± 210.414  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF      thrpt       10  1433.620
> ±  11.194  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile    thrpt       10  1026.319
> ±  13.347  ops/ms
>
> I will continue to run this on a few other configurations. I think I would
> also like to add the async appenders/loggers to this test so that one can
> see all the various options.
>
> It is really quite interesting to me to see how the memory mapped appender
> behaves so differently from one machine to another. I don’t know under what
> circumstances I would recommend using it though.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> After modifying the configuration the new results on my laptop are:
>
> Benchmark                                         Mode  Samples     Score
>     Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile        thrpt       10    92.580
> ±    3.698  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File     thrpt       10   828.707
> ±   55.006  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File     thrpt       10  1647.230
> ±  125.682  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF      thrpt       10  1465.002
> ± 1284.943  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF      thrpt       10  1765.340
> ±  149.707  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile    thrpt       10  1192.594
> ±   57.777  ops/ms
>
> I will try the other machines later and post those results.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> Ceki replied on twitter that the immediateFlush option is now a parameter
> of the appended, not the encoder, so it looks like the confit needs to be
> changed and the test rerun.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> FYI, The write and flush methods in BufferedOutputStream are also
> synchronized, so we won't be able to do away with synchronization
> completely.
>
> In OutputStreamManager we synchronize multiple methods but these are
> nested calls. I thought reentrant synchronization had negligible overhead
> but I haven't measured this myself.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:31, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many
> methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write.
> Unfortunately, I can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how dispersed
> the code has gotten.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but
> discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a
> lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a
> BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is writing to it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
[image: MagineTV]

*Mikael Ståldal*
Senior software developer

*Magine TV*
mikael.staldal@magine.com
Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com

Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this
message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
(or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not
copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
email.

Mime
View raw message