So far I've discovered that my implementation of Layout that uses CharsetEncoder.encode(CharBuffer, ByteBuffer, boolean) is slower than the version that just uses CharsetEncoder.encode(CharBuffer). That could be causing issues here.
I did try out FileChannel, and based on my current implementations, it's around the same speed as using Files.newOutputStream(). My AsynchronousFileChannel usage must be incorrect as it's working much slower than the synchronous form. On 26 February 2017 at 13:03, Afonso Murakami <murakam...@icloud.com> wrote: > I don’t know if that make any difference but I click on the link > https://githhub.com/vz/nio-looger to see what is about and when I > finished I sign of on my account may that screw up something or may be not, > I’m not sure if Idid that or not, sorry. > > On Feb 26, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I could be doing something wrong entirely here, but so far, the fastest > way I've found to write to a file (not including mmap yet) is via: > > new BufferedOutputStream(Files.newOutputStream(Paths.get("test.log"))) > > And this is with added synchronization on the append() method, too. Also, > one of my updates to the async channel version is causing OOM errors in JMH > now, so I broke something. > > On 26 February 2017 at 12:22, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I added some basic JMH tests to my repo along with a couple alternative >> appender implementations. I got rid of the unnecessary file region locking >> in the async file channel one, but it's still coming out quite a bit slower >> than the RandomAccessFile and Files.newOutputStream() based appenders, >> though that could be due to the use of Phaser (which I only added to >> cleanly close the appender synchronously). >> >> On 26 February 2017 at 10:05, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps something got optimized by the JVM? I'll add some JMH tests to >>> this repo to try out various approaches. >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 21:12, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I tried using a FileChannel for the FileAppender a week or so ago to >>>> see if passing the ByteBuffer to the FileChannel would improve performance >>>> since it doesn’t have to be synchronized. I didn’t see any improvement >>>> though and I ended up reverting it. But I might have done something wrong. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>> On Feb 25, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> We already use a bit of NIO (ByteBuffer for layouts and >>>> appenders/managers, MappedByteBuffer for mmap'd files, FileLock for locking >>>> files, etc.), and I've been playing around with the NIO API lately. I have >>>> some sample code here <https://github.com/jvz/nio-logger> to show some >>>> trivial use case of AsynchronousFileChannel. In Java 7, there is also >>>> AsynchronousSocketChannel which could theoretically be used instead of >>>> adding Netty for a faster socket appender. In that regard, I'm curious as >>>> to how useful it would be to have similar appenders as the OutputStream >>>> ones, but instead using WritableByteChannel, GatheringByteChannel (possible >>>> parallelization of file writing?), and the async channels (there's an >>>> AsynchronousByteChannel class, but I think they screwed this one up as only >>>> one of the three async channel classes implements it). >>>> >>>> Another related issue I've seen is that in a message-oriented appender >>>> (e.g., the Kafka one), being able to stream directly to a ByteBuffer is not >>>> the right way to go about encoding log messages into the appender. Instead, >>>> I was thinking that a pool of reusable ByteBuffers could be used here where >>>> a ByteBuffer is borrowed on write and returned on completion (via a >>>> CompletionHandler callback). The Kafka client uses a similar strategy for >>>> producing messages by dynamically allocating a pool of ByteBuffers based on >>>> available memory. >>>> >>>> Also, I don't have much experience with this, but if we had a pool of >>>> reusable ByteBuffers, could we use direct allocation to get off-heap >>>> buffers? That seems like an interesting use case. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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>
