The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is writing to it.
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 > <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>>
