[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1430?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15375593#comment-15375593
 ] 

John Cairns commented on LOG4J2-1430:
-------------------------------------

[~rem...@yahoo.com], I agree wholeheartedly.  I want to make sure the real 
measurements don't get lost in a sea of words and ambiguous "concerns" and fine 
points.   Of which I've heard many on this thread.

For naming "Conversant Disruptor" would be correct.    

Currently we support MPMC and SPSC.    I will add it to my project list to 
investigate an MPSC solution.    Given that with <8 threads we have good 
performance as compared to the JCTools solution, I think it satisfactory to 
move forward with the MPMC at this time.    

One other non-quantifiable would be: is it a BlockingQueue or does it need to 
be wrapped.  i.e. the wrapping implementation may be less robust regardless of 
the merits of the queue.

As far as benchmarking, I would consider the queue capacity.     For less than 
<128 many of these queues will get serious performance advantages by fitting 
into L1 cache, at least Conversant Disruptor does.   On the other hand for 
throughput benchmarks that saturate the queue, high-capacity might actually 
exhibit much better results overall.      It would be a good idea to try to 
measure that tradeoff.

> Add optional support for Conversant DisruptorBlockingQueue in AsyncAppender
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LOG4J2-1430
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1430
>             Project: Log4j 2
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Appenders
>    Affects Versions: 2.6.1
>            Reporter: Matt Sicker
>            Assignee: Matt Sicker
>             Fix For: 2.7
>
>         Attachments: AsyncAppenderPerf01.txt, 
> conversantvsjctoolsnumthreads.jpg, jctools-vs-conversant-service-time.png, 
> log4j2-1430-jctools-tmp-patch.txt
>
>
> [Conversant Disruptor|https://github.com/conversant/disruptor] works as an 
> implementation of BlockingQueue that is much faster than ArrayBlockingQueue. 
> I did some benchmarks earlier and found it to be a bit faster:
> h3. AsyncAppender/ArrayBlockingQueue
> {code}
> 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
> {code}
> h3. AsyncAppender/DisruptorBlockingQueue
> {code}
> 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
> {code}
> h3. AsyncLogger
> {code}
> 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
> {code}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org

Reply via email to