It is there now. Ralph
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:46 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > > can you push the correct config? > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: > After modifying the configuration the new results on my laptop are: > > Benchmark Mode Samples Score > Error Units > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt 10 92.580 ± > 3.698 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt 10 828.707 ± > 55.006 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt 10 1647.230 ± > 125.682 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF thrpt 10 1465.002 ± > 1284.943 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF thrpt 10 1765.340 ± > 149.707 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt 10 1192.594 ± > 57.777 ops/ms > > I will try the other machines later and post those results. > > Ralph > > >> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >> <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: >> >> Ceki replied on twitter that the immediateFlush option is now a parameter of >> the appended, not the encoder, so it looks like the confit needs to be >> changed and the test rerun. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com >> <mailto:remko.po...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>> <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>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> > >
