This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather interesting.
On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > 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> wrote: > >> You should run the code at 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> 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> 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> wrote: >>> >>> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender. >>> See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html and https://docs.google >>> .com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D >>> 91m0/edit#gid=0. I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
