On 2011-09-20, Roy Chastain wrote: > <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4net/trunk/src/site/xdoc/re > lease/faq.xml> looks good with the exception of ") and has also be paid > for by a loss in performance."
> May I suggest a rewording of ". The acquisition and release of a Mutex > for every log entry to be written will result in a loss of performance, > but the Mutex is preferable to the use of MinimalLock." Will change it. > Are you seriously suggesting that we allow the use of a Mutex lock in > the new RFA? I didn't intend to. But since the current RollingFileAppender (and that's the one I'm talking about in the FAQ) extends FileAppender it can (and will) be used together with a Mutex. Rolling doesn't take the locking model into account at all and there are JIRA issues (or at least have been until they've been closed as invalid) raised by people who expect RollingFileAppender to work at least as well as FileAppender in the "multiple processes write to a single file" scenario. I mention RollingFileAppender in the FAQ to say it is going to make things worse. Stefan
