At 14:58 10.07.2002 -0700, Mark Womack wrote: > > 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? > >I think some kind of performance measuring code would be helpful here. I >think will put together something for my contribution directory. Then we >could gather data from folks, capturing some idea about their setup.
+1 >I guess the point I am trying to make is that if there is anything we can do >in the log4j code to increase this throughput, we should look into doing it. >Using externalizable is one way, though it carries an incompatibility risk. Using the java.io.Externalizable interface is certain to increase performance but at the cost of backward compatibility. >Maybe creating different kinds of remote appenders (like UDP) is another >way. But, we need to capture some kind of base line data to understand if >the changes are effective. I got led in this direction while trying to >determine if my Receiver design was adding any significant overhead to the >socket transmission. That's all. I understand. >-Mark -- Ceki -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
