I am most concerned with the two things that have been most impacted - the FileAppenderBenchmark and the MarkerFilterBenchmark.
Ralph > On Mar 3, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes but only the JMH benchmarks. Is that acceptable? > > The latency tests and the non-JMH Async Logger tests are too involved... > > One thing to bear in mind, we carefully documented the versions of the > libraries we compared against with our benchmark results. The fact that newer > versions of these libraries are now available does not invalidate those > results. It just means that our performance page is not up to date with the > latest version. We can try to stay up to date but in my opinion it's okay to > let some time elapse if we're busy with other things. > > Anyway, if just the JMH tests are ok, I'll try to do this in the next month. > > Remko > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 3, 2017, at 17:24, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >> Remko, >> >> Would it be possible for you to update the performance page for the next >> release? I am uncomfortable with some of the results because I know they >> have changed since 2.6. >> >> Ralph >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
