I ran the logback-perf repo on the same AWS instance. Here's the CSV data. It appears as soon as more than one thread comes into play, log4j2 has better scores.
"Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",1,10,964.600470,279.139021,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",1,10,1274.682156,6.179197,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",1,10,1257.026405,32.898682,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",1,10,1363.683525,41.884725,"ops/ms" "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",2,10,687.304803,13.266922,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",2,10,1386.596198,207.305249,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",2,10,1579.884762,24.098318,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",2,10,953.138212,99.156775,"ops/ms" "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",4,10,670.442970,15.049614,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",4,10,1218.543593,18.234077,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",4,10,1309.092881,31.547936,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",4,10,845.168355,24.547390,"ops/ms" "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",8,10,689.805339,7.415023,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",8,10,1196.396592,19.360776,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",8,10,1319.477318,10.601260,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",8,10,816.608726,25.603234,"ops/ms" "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",16,10,687.623660,16.114008,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",16,10,1203.649145,8.835115,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",16,10,1266.241778,7.564414,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",16,10,789.507183,9.866592,"ops/ms" "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",32,10,690.252411,11.587858,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",32,10,1514185.478492,126804.168771,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",32,10,1264.049209,28.309088,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",32,10,754.828687,14.865909,"ops/ms" "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",64,10,670.498518,11.147198,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",64,10,1293.301940,22.687086,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",64,10,1380.527892,14.907542,"ops/ms" "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",64,10,750.528159,11.356281,"ops/ms" On 9 February 2017 at 13:02, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > You might try running Ceki’s benchmark project on AWS and publish those > numbers here. He also asked people to publish numbers on the Logback user’s > list so he can add them to his spreadsheet. > > From your numbers and the numbers I’ve been getting, it is clear to me > that the SSDs in Apple’s MacBook’s are pretty awesome. From the hardware > Remko is listing I’d say his machine is about as old as my other MacBook > except that he has an SSD that is slightly faster than my hard drive. > > Ralph > > On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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> > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
