Ralph, I don't think so: AbstractLogger calls logIfEnabled() which calls isEnabled() before calling logMessage().
So, even with AsyncLogger the Filters on the Logger are checked before the event is created or enqueued. I don't see an issue with the current code. Remko Sent from my iPhone > On 2016/05/18, at 6:33, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > Remko, > > Benedict makes a good point. While I don’t think filters on appenders should > be called before putting events on the queue we should probably be executing > the filters on the Logger. But currently those are called in the > LoggerConfig, which I think is after the events are added to the queue. > > Ralph > >> On May 17, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> Could I suggest that you run tests for latency and throughput effects of >> using this in systems with only moderate-to-low numbers of logging calls? >> (i.e. the vast majority of systems!) >> >> It's very likely that in such systems messages will not reach a velocity to >> keep the Dispatcher running, and so logging calls may often (or always) >> involve a Futex call - which is not a trivial cost. There will almost >> certainly be systems out there with anti-ideal characteristics - logging >> just often enough that these costs materially impact throughput, but not >> often enough that they suddenly disappear. >> >> Even though a majority of systems do not need this, because it "async" and >> the new hotness, and there are no advertised downsides, everyone will try to >> use it. It's up to those who know better to make sure these people are >> informed it isn't a free lunch. Making sure all of the caveats are reported >> on the advertising page would be a great start IMO. >> >> Might I also separately suggest you consider filtering events prior to >> placing them on the queue for processing by the dispatcher? I've only >> briefly glanced at the code, but it seems not to be the case currently. >> >> >>> On 17 May 2016 at 18:50, Benedict Elliott Smith <_...@belliottsmith.com> >>> wrote: >>> Could I suggest that you run tests for latency and throughput effects of >>> using this in systems with only moderate-to-low numbers of logging calls? >>> (i.e. the vast majority of systems!) >>> >>> It's very likely that in such systems messages will not reach a velocity to >>> keep the Dispatcher running, and so logging calls may often (or always) >>> involve a Futex call - which is not a trivial cost. There will almost >>> certainly be systems out there with anti-ideal characteristics - logging >>> just often enough that these costs materially impact throughput, but not >>> often enough that they suddenly disappear. >>> >>> Even though a majority of systems do not need this, because it "async" and >>> the new hotness, and there are no advertised downsides, everyone will try >>> to use it. It's up to those who know better to make sure these people are >>> informed it isn't a free lunch. Making sure all of the caveats are >>> reported on the advertising page would be a great start IMO. >>> >>> Might I also separately suggest you consider filtering events prior to >>> placing them on the queue for processing by the dispatcher? I've only >>> briefly glanced at the code, but it seems not to be the case currently. >>> >>>> On 17 May 2016 at 18:33, Martin Thompson <mjpt...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Remko, >>>> >>>> I'd just like to say that it is a great service to the community as a >>>> whole that someone is seriously looking at improving logging. >>>> >>>> If you keep it up you'll be putting folks like me out of a job :) >>>> >>>> Martin... >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 17 May 2016 at 18:13, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> First, my thanks to the many people who gave helpful advice and feedback >>>>> on how to measure Log4j response time on this list some time ago. >>>>> >>>>> We're about to start the Log4j 2.6 release. >>>>> If anyone is interested, a preview of the garbage-free logging manual >>>>> page is here: >>>>> http://home.apache.org/~rpopma/log4j/2.6/manual/garbagefree.html >>>>> and a preview of the updated performance page is here: >>>>> http://home.apache.org/~rpopma/log4j/2.6/performance.html >>>>> >>>>> Feedback welcome! >>>>> >>>>> Remko >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>> "mechanical-sympathy" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>> email to mechanical-sympathy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "mechanical-sympathy" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>> email to mechanical-sympathy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >
