But I agree it is interesting to see that a simple (RAF)FileAppender will outperform async logging if the sustained logging rate is faster than the appender can handle for long enough to fill up the queue. I've heard people in the high performance computing world mention this but I hadn't seen actual numbers until now.
It is good to gain an intuition on these things. Async Loggers (with LMAX Disruptor) performance is worse than a plain File but not terrible either. Interesting how LogbackAsyncFile seems to suffer more than log4j2AsyncAppender. And yes, JUL is so bad it is not funny any more. We did document that <https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html#fileLoggingComparison> but perhaps we need to evangelize it more... On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > The queue is bigger but still fills up quickly because all the benchmarks > do is add events as quickly as possible and the FileAppender can't keep up > with that rate. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 12, 2017, at 16:19, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > 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> 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> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *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> > > > >
