That in itself is fine, but I agree we should give an indication of which versions (Log4j2, logback, java) and environment (OS, hardware) were used.
FYI, the numbers on the async loggers page took a few weeks to pull together, analyse and present in that format. I would not look forward to doing that for each release... :-) On Wednesday, September 9, 2015, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm guessing these numbers are not recomputed for each release either :-( > > Gary > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> The Performance page http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html >> has a section on Advanced Filtering containing a performance comparison >> table with LogBack. >> >> What do these numbers mean? Is this messages per second? And is it >> messages actually logged or filtered out? (Also would be interested to know >> which appender was used, and if the benchmark code is somewhere for others >> to run.) >> > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> | [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
