Ran on an AWS instance (CentOS 7.2), cpuinfo says 8-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2666 v3 @ 2.90GHz, not super sure about all the params involved in making the instance, but here's some data (same strangeness with MMF):
Benchmark Mode Samples Score Error Units o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt 10 86.867 ± 4.502 ops/ms o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt 10 671.156 ± 7.099 ops/ms o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt 10 1221.814 ± 22.130 ops/ms o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF thrpt 10 1178.407 ± 960.141 ops/ms o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF thrpt 10 1220.746 ± 34.421 ops/ms o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt 10 898.122 ± 8.128 ops/ms On 9 February 2017 at 12:02, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?u >>>>>> sp=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> > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
