Also, there are some potential issues with logback-perf: * JMH is way out of date (1.11.3 versus 1.17.4) * Less warmup iterations than we do
Anyways, results for 32 threads (8 core environment): Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt 10 695.774 ± 9.567 ops/ms FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt 10 1300.091 ± 17.579 ops/ms FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF thrpt 10 1365.118 ± 17.656 ops/ms FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt 10 766.294 ± 10.121 ops/ms On 9 February 2017 at 14:37, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > That value does look messed up. I'll re-run the 32 thread tests. Also, I'm > not on the logback lists yet, so I'll sign up this afternoon. > > On 9 February 2017 at 14:35, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> What is up with that score for 32 threads? That can’t possibly be >> correct. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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/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/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> >> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
