Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine. It shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
Ralph > On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 256k > buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which appears > to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool to see how > these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and logback. > > On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: > You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf > <https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf> to compare your results to Ceki’s. > You also should capture the cpubenchmark speed of your processor and get the > speed of your hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am > capturing my results in a Google spreadsheet. I will post the like once I > have it. > > Ralph > >> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com >> <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows >> again. >> >> Let me know what args/command line... >> >> Gary >> >> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >> <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: >> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive category. >> With Logback 1.10 and -t 4 now get >> >> Benchmark Mode Samples Score >> Error Units >> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt 20 98187.673 >> ± 4935.712 ops/s >> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt 20 842374.496 >> ± 6762.712 ops/s >> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt 20 1853062.583 >> ± 67032.225 ops/s >> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF thrpt 20 2036011.226 >> ± 53208.281 ops/s >> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt 20 999667.438 >> ± 12074.003 ops/s >> >> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything directly >> on bare metal any more. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >>> <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender. >>> See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html <https://logback.qos.ch/news.html> and >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0 >>> >>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0>. >>> I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make. >>> >>> Ralph >> > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>>
