*TLDR:* I want to remove performance figures from the Log4j website,
because they don't serve any practical value anymore.

Log4j website shares performance figures in several pages; Performance
<https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html#benchmarks>,
Asynchronous
Logging
<https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/async.html#asynchronous-logging-performance>,
Garbage-free Logging
<https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/garbagefree.html> are among
the well-known ones. I want to remove all performance figures and only keep
pragmatic recommendations due to following reasons:

   - *Insufficient relevancy* – Shared figures were mostly produced using
   Log4j version `2.5` and `2.6`. These releases date back from late 2016 and
   *a lot* has changed since then.
   - *Insufficient reliability* – There were many occasions PMC members
   stated they weren't able to reproduce these figures.
   - *Error prone* – As tipped in the website, measuring performance
   correctly is very difficult
   <https://www.infoq.com/presentations/latency-response-time>.
   - *Context dependent* – Performance is an extremely subjective term. It
   requires context. What kind of an application? What is the application
   load? What is the logging load? What is the logging setup? etc. Sharing a
   meaningful figure here that users can benefit in any way is, IMHO,
   impossible.
   - *2.x vs 3.x* – We are ramping down for the `3.0.0` release. I doubt if
   any of the existing performance figures (produced using ~8 year old Log4j)
   are applicable to Log4j 3.

Will we have no performance figures at all? AFAIC, we need to have a
continuous performance testbed that would not only give users an indication
about performance of Log4j over time (in a reproducible way!), but also,
maybe more importantly, guide maintainers on making changes affecting
performance. Some of you might recall: I already had implemented some stuff
on this subject and had a "a continuous performance testbed"  project in my
first STF projects draft. But we needed to drop it due to other pressing
issues and insufficient budget. We can bring it up again if need (and
budget?) arises. Let me know if you and/or your employer would be
interested in funding such an effort.

Reply via email to