I looked at 1.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.1.10 and saw nothing special other than a lack of a synchronized keyword on the equivalent append method. Perhaps he figured out a simpler way to emulate locking?
I've been working with async/non-blocking streaming APIs for long enough now that I can't even remember the last time I had to write an actual lock. On 6 February 2017 at 22:02, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > 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> 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/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0 >>> RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/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/spread >>> sheets/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> >> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
