What I found really neat about the Conversant disruptor is that it doesn't use sun.misc.Unsafe which makes it a bit more future-proof. On the other hand, the main developer said it's optimised for Intel architectures, so it's somewhat special purpose.
On 15 June 2016 at 19:14, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > Very nice numbers! > I think this would be a great addition to Log4j 2. > > As with any improvement that is performance-centric, we should add a > section to the Performance page that compares the new capability to the > previous options. It would be great if we can run these benchmarks for a > number of threads and show the result in a graph. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2016/06/16, at 1:24, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Using the 4 threads versions of the benchmarks, here's what I've found: > > *ArrayBlockingQueue:* > > Benchmark Mode > Samples Score Error Units > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput10Params thrpt > 20 1101267.173 ± 17583.204 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput11Params thrpt > 20 1128269.255 ± 12188.910 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput1Param thrpt > 20 1525470.805 ± 56515.933 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput2Params thrpt > 20 1789434.196 ± 42733.475 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput3Params thrpt > 20 1803276.278 ± 34938.176 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput4Params thrpt > 20 1468550.776 ± 26402.286 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput5Params thrpt > 20 1322304.349 ± 22417.997 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput6Params thrpt > 20 1179756.489 ± 16502.276 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput7Params thrpt > 20 1324660.677 ± 18893.944 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput8Params thrpt > 20 1309365.962 ± 19602.489 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput9Params thrpt > 20 1422144.180 ± 20815.042 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughputSimple thrpt > 20 1247862.372 ± 18300.764 ops/s > > > *DisruptorBlockingQueue:* > > Benchmark Mode > Samples Score Error Units > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput10Params thrpt > 20 3704735.586 ± 59766.253 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput11Params thrpt > 20 3622175.410 ± 31975.353 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput1Param thrpt > 20 6862480.428 ± 121473.276 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput2Params thrpt > 20 6193288.988 ± 93545.144 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput3Params thrpt > 20 5715621.712 ± 131878.581 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput4Params thrpt > 20 5745187.005 ± 213854.016 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput5Params thrpt > 20 5307137.396 ± 88135.709 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput6Params thrpt > 20 4953015.419 ± 72100.403 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput7Params thrpt > 20 4833836.418 ± 52919.314 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput8Params thrpt > 20 4353791.507 ± 79047.812 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughput9Params thrpt > 20 4136761.624 ± 67804.253 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncAppenderLog4j2Benchmark.throughputSimple thrpt > 20 6719456.722 ± 187433.301 ops/s > > > *AsyncLogger:* > > Benchmark Mode Samples > Score Error Units > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput10Params thrpt 20 > 5075883.371 ± 180465.316 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput11Params thrpt 20 > 4867362.030 ± 193909.465 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput1Param thrpt 20 > 10294733.024 ± 226536.965 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput2Params thrpt 20 > 9021650.667 ± 351102.255 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput3Params thrpt 20 > 8079337.905 ± 115824.975 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput4Params thrpt 20 > 7347356.788 ± 66598.738 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput5Params thrpt 20 > 6930636.174 ± 150072.908 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput6Params thrpt 20 > 6309567.300 ± 293709.787 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput7Params thrpt 20 > 6051997.196 ± 268405.087 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput8Params thrpt 20 > 5273376.623 ± 99168.461 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughput9Params thrpt 20 > 5091137.594 ± 150617.444 ops/s > > o.a.l.l.p.j.AsyncLoggersBenchmark.throughputSimple thrpt 20 > 11136623.731 ± 400350.272 ops/s > > > So while the Conversant BlockingQueue implementation significantly > improves the performance of AsyncAppender, it looks like AsyncLogger is > still faster. > > On 15 June 2016 at 10:43, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm gonna play with the microbenchmarks and see what I find number-wise. >> I'll return with some results. >> >> On 15 June 2016 at 10:33, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> There's a much smaller disruptor library: < >>> https://github.com/conversant/disruptor> which implements >>> BlockingQueue. I'm not sure how it compares in performance to LMAX (it's >>> supposedly better on Intel machines), but it might be worth looking into as >>> an alternative (or at least making a BlockingQueueFactory like Camel does >>> for its SEDA component). >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
