Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT Ralph
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry what 1.2 do you mean? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:06, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> >>> <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 >>> >>> <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 >>>> <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>
