FYI, The write and flush methods in BufferedOutputStream are also synchronized, so we won't be able to do away with synchronization completely.
In OutputStreamManager we synchronize multiple methods but these are nested calls. I thought reentrant synchronization had negligible overhead but I haven't measured this myself. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:31, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many > methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write. Unfortunately, > I can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how dispersed the code has > gotten. > > Ralph > >> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >> I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but >> discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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> 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/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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/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> >>> >> >
