After removing the potential impact of appenders and layouts by testing with log4j-core\src\test\resources\perf-CountingNoOpAppender.xml and org.apache.logging.log4j.core.async.perftest.SimplePerfTest, I've confirmed my initial numbers:
2.0: 7.5M ops/sec 2.1: 6M ops/sec 2.2: 6M ops/sec 2.3: 6M ops/sec 2.4: 4.5M ops/sec 2.5: 4M ops/sec 2.6: 2M ops/sec I tried reverting various changes made to AsyncLogger since 2.0, performance improves a little up to 4M ops/sec. However, when completely reverting AsyncLogger source to the 2.0 version, performance is back to 7.5M ops/sec. I'll try starting from the 2.0 source and getting back to 2.6 functionality without losing performance... (Lengthy process...) On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is the PerfTestDriver test class (in log4j-core/test, package > ...async.perf). > Mainly perf3PlainNoLocation.xml: > RollingRandomAccessFileAppender, PatternLayout, all loggers are > AsyncLoggers, logging a simple string without parameters. > > Profiling with YourKit did not tell me anything useful. > > I'm now eliminating the effect of Layouts/Appenders, using > CountingNoOpAppender, and seeing similar numbers. So this seems to be > mostly an issue in AsyncLogger. > > I'll let you know when I find out more. > There's a lot of trial and error here, so this may take a while... > > Remko > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2016/02/26, at 21:02, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com> wrote: > > Which components (appenders, layouts) are involved in the tests? Would it > be possible to do some profiling to see if there is any particular > component which is to blame? > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> To give you some rough impression on concrete numbers for this trend: >> 2.0: ~6M ops/sec >> 2.1-2.2: ~5M ops/sec >> 2.3-2.4: ~3-4M ops/sec >> 2.5: ~3M ops/sec >> 2.6: ~2M ops/sec >> >> >> On Friday, 26 February 2016, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> You're absolutely right. I still have quite a few unit tests to add. >>> >>> Initial perf testing shows a downward trend in Async Logger performance >>> with every release. (Logging simple string messages without params.) >>> This is worrisome and I'm focusing on figuring that out first: this will >>> likely involve additional code changes and I'll add more tests after that. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 2016/02/26, at 10:38, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Wow, I love the activity we are seeing toward 2.6! All the perf work on >>> top of an existing sizable change set. Very exciting indeed. >>> >>> There sure are a lot of changes coming in. I hope that we all can pitch >>> in to make sure most if not all of these changes get code coverage from >>> unit tests. I've not checked closely, but it seems like we may not have >>> good coverage _yet_, or do I have the wrong impression? >>> >>> I want to make sure we keep our stability in tip top shape :-) and that >>> we have no regression from previous releases. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> -- >>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >>> 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 >>> >>> > > > -- > [image: MagineTV] > > *Mikael Ståldal* > Senior software developer > > *Magine TV* > mikael.stal...@magine.com > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com > > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply > email. > >
