Let's think about what is the relevant metric for users. I guess that quite some users value minimal slowdown of the application over maximal rate of log events written out.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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/logbac >>>>>>>>>>>>> k-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> >> >> >> >> > -- [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.
