Before the talk: Hi, I'm Remko, I help on Apache Log4j, are you available after the preso to talk about some issue we are seeing?
Gary On Mar 1, 2016 8:29 AM, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm attending a JUG meetup tonight with Kirk Pepperdine presenting. It's > supposed to be a Java performance workshop type of thing, so if you've got > a decent way to ask about it, I could see if he can help figure out this > regression. I can at least show off the SimplePerfTest and any > microbenchmarks we have. > > On 28 February 2016 at 11:54, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Take a look at the git bisect command. Might help you find which changes >> caused the problem. >> >> >> On Sunday, 28 February 2016, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thank you for digging in Remko. This is will be a nice theme to >>> publicize when you get it figured out. >>> >>> Gary >>> On Feb 28, 2016 4:08 AM, "Remko Popma" <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >
