I don’t understand. His async configuration for Log4j 2 isn’t async. I didn’t
see him set the system property. The log4j2 config file says
<!-- No need to set system property "log4j2.contextSelector" to any value
when using <asyncLogger> or <asyncRoot>. -->
But he didn’t configure an AsyncLogger or AsyncRoot and there is no Async
Appender configured.
Ralph
> On Aug 20, 2021, at 9:14 AM, Carter Kozak <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Benchmarks were using an unpublished version of logback that works
> differently than the release version I tested against -- continuing the
> conversation there, but I'll report back here once dust settles. Rerunning
> the benchmarks with a logback snapshot from source shows that async logback
> with one logging thread outperforms async log4j2 with 1 logging thread,
> however log4j2 performs better with 20 threads. I still need to do a bit of
> deeper investigation but will be busy with work for the next several hours.
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, at 12:10, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> Feel free to respond to his tweet.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>> On Aug 20, 2021, at 7:15 AM, Carter Kozak <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for flagging this! I've responded to the tweet, copying it here as
>>> well for posterity:
>>>
>>> Looking at the logback benchmark it appears that no bytes are being written
>>> to target/test-output/logback-async-perf.log. Upon closer inspection the
>>> logback asyncappender is in an started=false state, rejecting all input
>>> events.
>>> https://twitter.com/carter_kozak/status/1428721705464238085?s=20
>>>
>>> -ck
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, at 01:13, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Ceki has recently posted a Tweet stating that both log4j 1 and logback
>>>> performs better than log4j 2 in async mode:
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/ceki/status/1428461637917360131?s=19
>>>> https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf
>>>>
>>>> I don't know much about how async wiring is done under the hood, yet, if
>>>> his claim is true, that is pretty concerning. Would anybody mind sparing
>>>> some time to investigate if the configuration he employs is tuned good
>>>> enough and the results are accurate, please?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
