True, but I would still like to also see what difference it makes using the FileChannel instead of the OutputStream.
Ralph > On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That is all doable but it may be a good idea to test if that is really where > the bottleneck is. > We could try whether we get better numbers if we remove the current > synchronization (ignoring any scrambled output, just for testing purposes). > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: > In looking at FileManager and OutputStreamManager it does have a ByteBuffer > but it requires synchronization. I am thinking it might make more sense to > have a ThreadLocal ByteBuffer and then pass that to FileChannel.write() so > that no synchronization is required. > > Ralph > >> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com >> <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> 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 >> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: >>> Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto: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>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> > >
