These figures are somewhat meaningless. The throughput of the socket appender depends on the network connection, the CPU on the client and server side, as well as the length of the messages sent. Sending messages 5 character long will take significantly less time than sending messages 5KB long.
These parameters must fixed and their influence studied carefully. I would test the results with message lengths of 10, 100 and 1000 characters. The real problem is the identification of the bottleneck. Is it the CPU or the network bandwidth? When 440 messages transit per second, what is the CPU load? Assuming a single machine, it is likely to approach 100%. However, will this be the case when using multiple machines? At 07:11 10.07.2002 -0500, you wrote: >Mark, > >FYI, my tests showed socketAppender could handle almost 400 loggingEvents >per second. > >Jeroen > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Womack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:50 PM >To: Log4j-Dev (E-mail) >Subject: Socket Performance? > > >It just seems that one thing leads to another...I was looking through my >Receiver implementation and decided to run some ad-hoc performance tests. I >configured 3 processes on my machine: 1 with a SocketReceiver (matches >SocketAppender), 2 with SocketAppenders. The SocketAppenders both connected >to the SocketReceiver, and all processes also had ConsoleAppender >configured. > >I had the SocketAppender processes run simultaneously for 20 seconds. The >SocketReceiver processed all of the logging events sent across the >SocketAppender/SocketReceiver connection. I tried various permutations in >the implementation (buffered streams input and output, a event queue in the >receiver, etc). The best performance I ever tracked (mind you, this was >ad-hoc) ~220 events/second for each SocketAppender process. This means that >with both processes running, the SocketReceiver was processing about ~440 >events/second. > >I know that there are a lot of variables that will affect this performance, >and I don't have anything to compare this to. Does this perfomance compare >to other people's experience sending logging events across sockets? Do we >have some code we use as a benchmark/test? We should. > >And looking at this performance stuff leads me to the previous discussion >about optimizing the serialization of the LoggingEvent object...I think the >most gains will be made with that work. > >-Mark > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Ceki -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
