I don't have any hard numbers but the last time I played around with MinimalLock it was very very slow. I view InterProcessLock as an intermediary between exclusive and minimal locking.
________________________________ From: Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> To: 'Log4NET Dev' <log4net-dev@logging.apache.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:37 AM Subject: RE: Name for MutexLock? >LOG4NET-164 introduced a new locking strategy for FileAppender which >technically uses a System.Threading.Mutex with a name built from the log >file's name. This should allow separate processes to share a log file >without repeatedly opening and closing it. > >The main remaining issue is its name (apart from docs which will follow >once the name is settled). Right now it is called MutexLock but that >may not convey to users what this actually does - they'd need to know >what a Mutex is in the first place. > >I'm notoriously bad at names so I'm asking here now. Names suggested in >the JIRA ticket are "InterProcessLock", "SystemWideLock" and >"GlobalLock". Are we talking about the variable name? In that case I would prefer a name that makes it obvious what it is behind: MutexLock :-) Did you actually do performance tests too? A mutex is rather expensive and it should be avoided to acquire/release it multiple times unless really necessary. Greetings, D.
