Whoa, I wonder how async MMF benchmarks compare. Also, I wonder if there's some sort of cloud service out there we can use for free to run benchmarks on a regular basis. Might even be doable with a dedicated VM on builds.apache.org.
On 11 February 2017 at 13:37, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Just for fun I decided to add some more tests to the file appender > benchmark. I’ve checked them in. Please review them to see if everything is > configured so the tests make sense. > > Note that I would expect the async appenders to reduce to the speed of the > file appender, since once the queue fills up that is what they are waiting > on. But I didn’t set a buffer size for the disruptor or async logger tests > so I would have expected those to be quite a bit faster than the regular > file test. > > The one thing that is definitely worth noting is how truly terrible the > JUL file appender is. I have to assume that it must be doing an immediate > flush on every write. > > This is on my MacBook Pro - what Ceki would call Fast CPU/Fast SSD > > Benchmark Mode Samples > Score Error Units > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt 10 > 69.546 ± 2.635 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt 10 > 783.006 ± 28.138 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt 10 > 939.605 ± 38.655 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptor thrpt 10 > 1446.522 ± 45.485 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger thrpt 10 > 1269.014 ± 27.236 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt 10 > 1475.605 ± 74.675 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF thrpt 10 > 2131.240 ± 114.184 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF thrpt 10 > 1499.667 ± 39.668 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackAsyncFile thrpt 10 > 326.969 ± 2.690 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt 10 > 940.527 ± 34.090 ops/ms > > And this is on my old MacBook Pro - it uses a hard drive so isn’t very > fast. > > Benchmark Mode Samples > Score Error Units > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt 10 > 15.722 ± 15.557 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt 10 > 530.668 ± 54.193 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt 10 > 498.620 ± 178.693 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptor thrpt 10 > 454.541 ± 145.505 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger thrpt 10 > 527.784 ± 150.269 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt 10 > 587.605 ± 97.769 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF thrpt 10 > 1966.092 ± 431.196 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF thrpt 10 > 364.694 ± 34.602 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackAsyncFile thrpt 10 > 258.220 ± 1.936 ops/ms > o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt 10 > 560.958 ± 36.982 ops/ms > > Ralph > > On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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","thrp >>> t",1,10,964.600470,279.139021,"ops/ms" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrp >>> t",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","thr >>> pt",1,10,1363.683525,41.884725,"ops/ms" >>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error >>> (99.9%)","Unit" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrp >>> t",2,10,687.304803,13.266922,"ops/ms" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrp >>> t",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","thr >>> pt",2,10,953.138212,99.156775,"ops/ms" >>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error >>> (99.9%)","Unit" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrp >>> t",4,10,670.442970,15.049614,"ops/ms" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrp >>> t",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","thr >>> pt",4,10,845.168355,24.547390,"ops/ms" >>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error >>> (99.9%)","Unit" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrp >>> t",8,10,689.805339,7.415023,"ops/ms" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrp >>> t",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","thr >>> pt",8,10,816.608726,25.603234,"ops/ms" >>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error >>> (99.9%)","Unit" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrp >>> t",16,10,687.623660,16.114008,"ops/ms" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrp >>> t",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","thr >>> pt",16,10,789.507183,9.866592,"ops/ms" >>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error >>> (99.9%)","Unit" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrp >>> t",32,10,690.252411,11.587858,"ops/ms" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrp >>> t",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","thr >>> pt",32,10,754.828687,14.865909,"ops/ms" >>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error >>> (99.9%)","Unit" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrp >>> t",64,10,670.498518,11.147198,"ops/ms" >>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrp >>> t",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","thr >>> pt",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> > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
