Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of OutputStream?
On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing > list. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ > 1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0 > > I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my > two MacBooks are at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ > 1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing. > > Ralph > > On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only > way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks. > > Ralph > > On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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/1cpb5D7qny >>>> ye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0. I suspect we have a few >>>> optimizations we can make. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
