I added the tests so you guys could run them and take a look. I have no problem with the changes being reverted.
As I think I said, I expected most of the async appenders to back up. I expected them to be a bit slower, but I didn’t expect them to be as slow as they are when the queue is full. I also don’t understand why AsyncLogger is slower as it should have a large ring buffer if I understand correctly. Ralph > On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think it is a good idea to mix async tests with sync tests. > > We already have separate benchmarks for the various ways to log > asynchronously, if you want to compare them just run those also. > > JMH makes it super easy to build benchmarks but we have to be very careful > that the test really measures what we want to measure. > > Asynchronous logging has two "states", queue full and space available. Do we > want to measure the queue full state or the space available state (or the > transition between the two)? > > With a normal FileAppender JMH will iterate so fast that the queue > immediately fills up. This will likely happen during the warmup iterations > (no guarantee of course). > > What actually happens in that state? We used to block until space becomes > available in the queue. What we do now depends on the configured > AsyncQueueFullPolicy. Because blocking caused deadlocks in some scenarios, > our current default is to bypass the queue and log to the FileAppender > directly. I expect that to be slower than the simple FileAppender because of > the additional lock contention on the tail of the queue during the attempted > thread handover. > > The "queue full" state is not the normal logging state for an application. If > we want to measure this we should move these tests to a separate benchmark > that is clearly marked "QueueFullAsyncBenchmark" or something like that. > Otherwise people reading these benchmark results will misinterpret them and > get confused. > > The existing Async benchmarks ensure they measure the "queue space available" > state. > > Remko > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 12, 2017, at 4:37, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >>>> <mailto: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 >>>> <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <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/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing>. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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 <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FileAppender. See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://logback.qos.ch/news.html> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mikael Ståldal >>>>> Senior software developer >>>>> >>>>> Magine TV >>>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com <mailto:mikael.stal...@magine.com> >>>>> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com >>>>> <http://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 <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com <mailto:boa...@gmail.com>> >>
