Re: binary logging, I think he's talking about providing an API to log objects directly into byte buffers without turning them into Strings first.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1274 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-506 were created with that in mind and should be a good step in that direction. Sent from my iPhone > On 2016/03/02, at 15:11, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, I've often wondered about creating a binary format but it seems that > you could use JSON+ZIP or BSON and get most of the advantages. > > Gary > >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> One other interesting thing I learned is that improper use of logging is a >> huge source of performance problems. The GC-free parameterized message >> factory will help with one aspect of that (I suggested parameterized >> messages, but he countered with the Object[] that is created), and >> encouraging users to use a Supplier<String> instead of passing parameters >> should help as well (especially when those parameters have to be computed). >> He had some strong criticisms of logging APIs promoting bad practices which >> stems all the way back to log4j1 and affects pretty much every logging API >> in Java (some criticisms were actually outdated or didn't consider newer >> features of the API like markers and the huge amount of filters available). >> >> His other big idea was promoting the use of binary logging formats because >> humans rarely read the raw log files as it is, but it's not like there's a >> standard way to do that. >> >> Now I kinda wonder if he'll find this thread one day and tell me how I >> misinterpreted him or something. ;) >> >>> On 1 March 2016 at 22:28, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Alright, I learned some interesting things. I'm going to get us some tools >>> we can use to try and profile this. Otherwise, he did suggest trying out >>> this project: >>> https://github.com/RichardWarburton/honest-profiler >>> >>>> On 1 March 2016 at 19:31, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> So far he's said something about using lambdas for lazy evaluation (though >>>> I don't think that would actually help us at all). I'll try to talk to him >>>> one-on-one afterward to delve more into this. >>>> >>>>> On 1 March 2016 at 18:13, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Actually, most of the tests have the commands in the comments right in >>>>> the class. Just cut and past. >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't even figure out how to execute the simple perf test class. >>>>>> IntelliJ gives me some annotation processing error, and doing it from >>>>>> the command line is turning into a classpath nightmare to figure out >>>>>> what jars are needed to execute the test manually. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1 March 2016 at 11:34, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> 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" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: [email protected] | [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikael Ståldal >>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior software developer >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Magine TV >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
