You're asking if it's possible to change the site without doing a release. I'm not sure, maybe Ralph knows.
Sent from my iPhone > On 2016/05/08, at 11:01, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For the "nice to have" items, can we rebuild the site after 2.6 and just > commit that to svn? Or do site releases always need to match up with the > artifacts? > >> On 7 May 2016 at 19:32, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Understood about Rewrite. >> >> I figured that the performance page is the last remaining thing for the 2.6 >> release. >> >> I had a week off from work and made reasonable progress but it is >> surprisingly time consuming to create the data and then analyze it and do a >> write up. >> >> Still to do "must have": >> - JMH benchmarks for comparing performance of log4j2's Filter to Logback's >> TurboFilters >> - rewrite Async Logger latency section >> - Log4j2: compare File, RandomAccessFile, MemoryMappedFile, Console and >> Rewrite appenders (remove RandomAccessFile stuff from Async Logger page) >> >> "Nice to have": >> - Compare socket/syslog appenders between logging libraries >> - log4j2: Cost of various APIs/wrappers (SLF4J, Log4j1, JUL, Commons Logging) >> - log4j2: Compare performance all layouts (CSV, Gelf, HTML, JSON, Pattern, >> RFC-5424, Serialized, Syslog, XML). >> >> The full todo list is here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1179 >> >> Please do "mvn site", take a look at the current state of the Performance >> page and let me know if you find any issues. >> >> I might postpone some or all of the "nice to have" items to later, unless >> someone disagrees. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 2016/05/08, at 4:02, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>> >>> No, I have nothing particular in mind for that. >>> >>> Just to let you know - and not to put any pressure on - I am waiting for >>> this page before we do a release. I think it is pretty important, >>> especially with the detailed results you are producing. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>>> On May 7, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ralph, >>>> >>>> Started to work on a benchmark to compare Log4j2's File, RandomAccessFile, >>>> MemoryMappedFile, Console and Rewrite appenders. >>>> Is there any particular scenario you want to test with Rewrite appenders? >>>> >>>> Remko >>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> I will flesh things out further in this ticket: >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1179 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> This all sounds really good! >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, the filter comparison isn’t as clear as it should be. Yes, it is >>>>>> how long it takes to deny the events in nanoseconds. The results were >>>>>> generated by the FilterPerformanceComparison test class. At the time I >>>>>> tested with 2 Filters - a Marker filter and the MDC filter. If you look >>>>>> at BasicMarker in SLF4J you will notice that the hasReferences method is >>>>>> synchronized. In multi-threaded cases this can cause huge performance >>>>>> issues if you have a Marker with references to other markers (I >>>>>> personally experienced this). Also, the referenceList is a Vector, so >>>>>> the contains methods can throw ConcurrentModificationExceptions if >>>>>> Markers are modified during execution, even though the add and remove >>>>>> methods are synchronized the contains method is not. >>>>>> >>>>>> The test is currently set up to compare the MDC/ThreadContext Filters >>>>>> during the build. However, I am not sure it is correct. I don’t actually >>>>>> see it setting the value in the thread context, so it wouldn’t be >>>>>> denying the events. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ralph >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 1, 2016, at 12:44 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've started to work on this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Question: >>>>>>> the current page has a section comparing the performance Log4j 2 >>>>>>> Filters to Logback Filters. Can you point me to the test that generated >>>>>>> these results? What is being tested? I am guessing this is how long it >>>>>>> takes to call logger.log(level, msg) when the filter DENIES the event, >>>>>>> is this correct? Is the unit for the result numbers >>>>>>> nanosecond/operation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm thinking to convert the above filter test to a JMH benchmark. This >>>>>>> would allow people to quickly verify the results on their own machine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I need to think a bit on the items to put on the performance page (and >>>>>>> to create benchmarks for). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * One theme will be a comparison of Log4j 2 to other logging libraries >>>>>>> like Logback/Log4j1/JUL. One thing to measure is synchronized logging >>>>>>> throughput. I'll use this chart for the performance page and use a >>>>>>> simpler graph on the garbage-free manual page. >>>>>>> * Comparing File/RandomAccessFile/MemoryMappedFile appenders >>>>>>> * Documenting the performance of TCP/UDP appenders >>>>>>> * Compare parameterized logging to string concatenation >>>>>>> * Perhaps investigate/document the overhead of using the adapter/bridge >>>>>>> modules (Log4j1-api, commons-logging, slf4j, JUL adapter)? >>>>>>> * Lock-free async logging versus blocking async logging (just a >>>>>>> paragraph with link to the async logging manual page) >>>>>>> * Any Layouts to compare? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I plan to do most of the performance testing with JMH. The response >>>>>>> time test I'm using to test garbage-free latency gives a more nuanced >>>>>>> picture but is more work to execute, gather results, analyse etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll flesh this out more over the coming week. Feedback welcome as >>>>>>> always. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Remko >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Ralph Goers >>>>>>>> <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Either in the manual or a link above it >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Will do. Was on my TODO-eventually list but I'll move it up. :-) >>>>>>>>> Shall we included it in the manual then? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Ralph Goers >>>>>>>>>> <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Remko, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The performance page hasn’t been updated in quite some time. It >>>>>>>>>> really could use some of your nice graphs. Also, it isn’t linked >>>>>>>>>> from the main menu. The only way I know of to find it is by clicking >>>>>>>>>> a link embedded in the About page. Do you think you could enhance >>>>>>>>>> that page? It would be great to see a variation of the chart you >>>>>>>>>> made for garbage free logging, although I am just thinking of a few >>>>>>>>>> charts comparing Log4j 1, Log4j 2, Logback and JUL in various >>>>>>>>>> scenarios. Something similar to >>>>>>>>>> https://www.loggly.com/blog/benchmarking-java-logging-frameworks/ >>>>>>>>>> would be nice, but with similar configurations instead of relying on >>>>>>>>>> defaults. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am still aware that we may need to make improvements to the >>>>>>>>>> SocketAppender. I still intend to create a version that uses Netty, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ralph > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
