[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-163?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Remko Popma updated LOG4J2-163:
-------------------------------
Attachment: (was: async-throughput-comparison.jpg)
> Create asynchronous Logger for low-latency logging
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-163
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-163
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 2.0-beta4
> Reporter: Remko Popma
> Attachments: async-perf-comparison.png, FastLog4j-v2-for-beta4.zip,
> FastLog4j-v3-for-beta4.zip, FastLog4j-v4-for-beta4.zip,
> LOG4J2-163-log4j-async-20130320.patch, LOG4J2-163-log4j-async.patch
>
>
> One of the main considerations for selecting a logging library is
> performance, specifically, how long it takes for a call to Logger.log to
> return. (See the comments of LOG4J-151 for a discussion of latency versus
> application throughput and logging throughput.)
> I believe it is possible to improve this performance by an order of magnitude
> by having an asynchronous Logger implementation that hands off the work to a
> separate thread as early as possible. The disk I/O would be done in this
> separate thread.
> AsynchAppender is not a good match for these requirements, as with that
> approach (a) the logging call still needs to flow down the hierarchy to the
> appender, doing synchronization and creating objects at various points on the
> way, and (b) when serializing the LogEvent, the getSource() method is always
> called, which is expensive.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
