Toby, Yoav, Thanks for the responses.
Yoav: Thanks for explaining the Hierarchy.setThreshold() method - if I was to change the config to effectively set this would I get a performance gain? I would prefer not to have to call this method in Java and would like to do this via configuration. Toby: You are right, I shouldn't have been mixing properties files with xml files, it wasn't a fair comparison. I have changed to using both properties files. I have also updated the code to explicitly display the time taken to execute just the Log4J and JDK 1.4 code using direct calls to Date().getTime(). Strictly speaking this was not necessary as I was reusing the JUnitPerf classes from Mike Clark (www.clarkware.com). JUnitPerf is an Open Source add on to JUnit that allows you to measure the performance of JUnit tests, as I was initialising the Logger in the constructor of the JUnit TestCase class and not in the method that JUnitPerf was timing the differences between properties and xml config files shouldn't have made a difference. Anyway for clarity its changed now and you can run each test directly. I also take your point that "benchmarking by iteration" is not the best way to measure the overall performance of Log4J however the specific test that I am performing here is to understand the difference in duration between leaving JDK 1.4 and Log4J logging code in place and configuring it not to log any messages. As I said before the only reason that I am iterating 10 million times is to get a significantly measurable result as to perform the division and calculate the cost of leaving a single logging statement that is configured not to log. Unfortunately the changes didn't make any difference to the results, this time for 10 million iterations it was: JDK 1.4 : 441 ms Log4J : 901 ms I think that this illustrates that for a comparable test where the general configuration of both JDK 1.4 and Log4J is to log messages BUT a specific class has been configured NOT to log that JDK 1.4 is faster. If Log4J was enhanced to check earlier comparable performance results could be acheived. I have attached my updated tests and config. Thanks again, David --- Toby Butzon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David McVicar wrote: > > > The tests are configured using log4j.xml (Log4J) > and > > logging.properties (JDK 1.4). > > You should either (a) time JUST the log() method > calls or (b) use the > same kind of configuration file in both tests. XML > is significantly > harder to process than the .properties format. So, > try using > log4j.properties and let's see what your timing > results are then. > > Also try timing ONLY the loop and not the > initialization. You should be > able to use ``new java.util.Date().getTime()'' > before and after the > loop, subtracting the two values to get the elapsed > time in > milliseconds. (It'd be nice to have nano precision, > but that's not > supported; you could do it natively, if you were > keen on it.) > > Note also that benchmarking by iteration is not > usually the best way to > do it; though it seems to sheild you from having to > think about other > factors, looping differs a good bit from normal > usage, so it won't > necessarily reflect actual real-world performance. > > -- > Toby Butzon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ILC R&D Co-op / Georgia Tech CS / KKPsi Iota Sp03 > 678.904.2413 work / 678.362.6483 mobile > Fifteen Piedmont Center, Suite 700 / Atlanta, GA > 30305 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
log4jnotlogging V1.1.zip
Description: log4jnotlogging V1.1.zip
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
