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/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/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/spreadsheets/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/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/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>