Sorry what 1.2 do you mean? Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:06, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > In 1.2? That may work for a FileOutputStream but it isn’t guaranteed to work > for others. > > Ralph > >> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now >> between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized >> on the append method. >> >> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/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> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >
