Can't we use the ByteBuffers introduced in the GC-free epic? I was under the impression that byte arrays being passed to appenders was created from a ByteBuffer at this point, though I haven't really taken a close look at this.
On 7 February 2017 at 10:05, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > A FileChannel is guaranteed to be thread safe. You can obtain a > FileChannel from a FlieOutputStream, so that would seem to imply that > FileOutputStream might be thread-safe, but you can’t really know that > without looking at the source. The problem is that FileChannel.write() > takes a ByteBuffer whereas FileOutputStream.write() accepts a byte array. > To be thread safe it would have to safely copy the byte array into the byte > buffer to pass to the FileChannel. But FileOutputStream doesn’t use the > FileChannel at all in Java 7. It calls a native method that doesn’t specify > whether it is thread-safe or not, so simply removing the synchronization > isn’t guaranteed to work properly. > > OTOH, RandomAccessFile doesn’t say that it is thread-safe either and we > are not synchronizing writes to it. > > Ralph > > On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:37 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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> > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
