Run on a MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015) 2.5 GHz Intel Core i7. Can find out more hardware specs if needed. I also noticed that the memory mapped file starts out fast and slows down over time (somewhat seen by the error value here).
Benchmark Mode Samples Score Error Units o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt 10 96.540 ± 7.875 ops/ms o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt 10 766.286 ± 11.461 ops/ms o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt 10 1787.620 ± 36.695 ops/ms o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF thrpt 10 1506.588 ± 956.354 ops/ms o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF thrpt 10 1934.966 ± 50.089 ops/ms o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt 10 1285.066 ± 12.674 ops/ms On 9 February 2017 at 11:44, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > My results on Windows 10 64-bit laptop (java 1.8.0_51 64bit), i5-3317u CPU > @ 1.70GHz (dual core with hyperthreading for 4 virtual cores), SSD hard > disk: > > java -jar log4j-perf/target/benchmarks.jar ".*FileAppenderBenchmark.*" -f > 1 -wi 10 -i 20 -t 4 -tu ms > > # Run complete. Total time: 00:03:58 > > Benchmark Mode Samples Score > Error Units > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt 20 37.646 > ± 0.876 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt 20 405.305 > ± 6.596 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt 20 751.949 > ± 16.055 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF thrpt 20 1250.666 > ± 168.757 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF thrpt 20 728.743 > ± 23.909 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt 20 676.926 > ± 19.518 ops/ms > > -------------------- > Logback config without immediateFlush=false: > > # Run complete. Total time: 00:03:44 > > Benchmark Mode Samples Score > Error Units > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt 20 37.949 > ± 1.220 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt 20 404.042 > ± 8.450 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt 20 690.393 > ± 115.537 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF thrpt 20 1221.681 > ± 82.205 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF thrpt 20 823.059 > ± 41.512 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt 20 83.352 > ± 11.911 ops/ms > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com > > wrote: > >> I guess that with a memory mapped file, you leave it to the OS to do the >> best it can, and you lose any direct control over how it is actually done. >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On my Mac Pro with the slower external SSD I now got: >>> >>> Benchmark Mode Samples >>> Score Error Units >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt 10 >>> 73.739 ± 0.740 ops/ms >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt 10 >>> 683.129 ± 9.407 ops/ms >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt 10 >>> 991.293 ± 193.049 ops/ms >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF thrpt 10 >>> 3072.250 ± 63.475 ops/ms >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF thrpt 10 >>> 1056.256 ± 137.673 ops/ms >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt 10 >>> 784.723 ± 153.226 ops/ms >>> >>> and on the same machine with the faster internal SSD I got: >>> >>> Benchmark Mode Samples >>> Score Error Units >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt 10 >>> 74.661 ± 0.232 ops/ms >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt 10 >>> 647.041 ± 2.994 ops/ms >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt 10 >>> 1333.887 ± 13.921 ops/ms >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF thrpt 10 >>> 3025.726 ± 210.414 ops/ms >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF thrpt 10 >>> 1433.620 ± 11.194 ops/ms >>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt 10 >>> 1026.319 ± 13.347 ops/ms >>> >>> I will continue to run this on a few other configurations. I think I >>> would also like to add the async appenders/loggers to this test so that one >>> can see all the various options. >>> >>> It is really quite interesting to me to see how the memory mapped >>> appender behaves so differently from one machine to another. I don’t know >>> under what circumstances I would recommend using it though. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> >>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Apache <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> 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> 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> 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/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> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> [image: MagineTV] >> >> *Mikael Ståldal* >> Senior software developer >> >> *Magine TV* >> mikael.stal...@magine.com >> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com >> >> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this >> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message >> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may >> not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, >> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply >> email. >> > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
