First, concerning our use of multiple App domains, we've implemented a plugin based Windows service that has several independently running plugin threads running. We've decided to use an App domain per plugin thread so that if there is a problem with one of the plugins/threads, it doesn't bring down the other threads within the service.
I took a look at the blog post, and our code is similar to what is described in that post. We are initializing log4net in each app domain. We potentially have a very large amount of logs being generated overall in our system. I'd prefer to avoid having to save the data in a database, so routing the logs to a single RollingFileAppender seems to be the best solution. It sounds like this would also be an added benefit from a performance standpoint if we were able to use the ExclusiveLock locking model. Thanks for the feedback. It would be nice if this worked with the standard RollingFileAppender, but, this at least points me in a direction to find a solution to the problem I am having. Steve On Jan 20, 2008 1:42 PM, Ron Grabowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When a new app domain is created is log4net re-initialized in the new app > domain? > > It sounds like the problem is that you have a lot of threads trying to open, > close, and roll the log file. Can you delegate all the locking issues to a > database then extract data out at a later date? > > If using a database isn't an option I suggest trying to route all the > messages to a single RollingFileAppender instance configured to use the > default ExclusiveLock locking model (MinimalLock is noticeably slower even > for a small amount of logs). A comment from this blog: > > > http://www.jasonbock.net/JB/Default.aspx?blog=entry.f48ab22438bc4e35969ca6c559763e9c > > mentions using Remoting to channel all the messages from the threads to a > single RollingFileAppender so there is a single thread and class controlling > rolling. You coculd use the IpcChannel for inter-process communications. Is > your code similiar to the sample code in the blog post? > > If you don't mind me asking, what is the use case for having to create new > app domains in addition to the new threads? > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Steve Wranovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:10:29 AM > Subject: Log File Naming Problem > > > Hello, > > I have a multi-threaded application using log4net 1.2.10 for logging. > There are a couple of points when the application runs where there are > a large number of logs occurring simultaneously from multiple threads > (that happen to be in different App Domains). On occasion, I will end > up with two separate log files generated when this point in my > application occurs. One of the log files will end up with a date > pattern twice in the name and will look something like this: > > Server_2008-01-16.log > Server_2008-01-16.log2008-01-16.log > > A few of the logs end up in the second log file from one of the > threads. The remainder of the threads log to the first log file and > continue using it. Occasionally this second log file will be used > again by another thread if the problem happens again. Here's the > configuration file I'm using: > > <log4net> > <appender name="RollingLogFileAppender" > type="log4net.Appender.RollingFileAppender"> > <param name="File" > value=".\\logs\\Server_" /> > <param name="AppendToFile" value="true" > /> > <param name="MaxSizeRollBackups" > value="20" /> > <param name="MaximumFileSize" > value="10MB" /> > <param name="RollingStyle" > value="Composite" /> > <param name="datePattern" > value="yyyy-MM-dd.lo\g" /> > <param name="StaticLogFileName" > value="false" /> > <layout > type="log4net.Layout.PatternLayout"> > <param > name="ConversionPattern" value="%d [%t] %-5p - %m%n" /> > </layout> > <lockingModel > type="log4net.Appender.FileAppender+MinimalLock" /> > </appender> > <root> > <level value="INFO" /> > <appender-ref > ref="RollingLogFileAppender" /> > </root> > </log4net> > > It appears that perhaps a lock is failing in one of the threads, and > it by default tries to create another log file to log to. Is it > possible to block this from happening and have the logs go into the > original log file? If this is not possible, it would be nice if the > second log file didn't have the double date in it, or if the handling > of this was cleaner. > > Thanks, > Steve > > > >
