Hi Ceki, Keep in mind that I still have to double check my LoggingEvent-to-protobuf converter.
Serializing the corpus with different formats: java serialization => 16 MB (16108602) protobuf => 33 MB (34385867 bytes) protobuf + gzip => 9.9 MB (10354646 bytes) protbuf + deflater => 12 MB (12006206 bytes) speed: java serialization: 4330 ms protobuf 928 ms protobuf + gzip 3146 ms protobuf + deflater 1883 ms So I would choose for protobuf + deflater : 25% smaller than java serilaization and twice as fast. Deflater means using java.util.zip.Deflater.BEST_SPEED regards, Maarten On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Ceki Gulcu <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Maarten, > > It's interesting to learn that protobuf is faster than plain old java > serialization. Thanks. > > How about the size of the stored data? How many bytes does a logging event > use on average? > > Maarten Bosteels wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> No objections at all. >> >> Looking at my .proto file it's indeed pretty obvious that CallerData and >> StackTraceElement are quite similar :-) >> >> http://code.google.com/p/firewood/source/browse/trunk/compare-formats/src/main/java/com/googlecode/firewood/protobuf/logging.proto >> >> I've done some benchmarking with protobuf (using the Corpus), and it seems >> to be at least 4 times faster than Java serialization. >> Will soon post the results and the code. >> >> regards, >> Maarten >> >> > -- > Ceki Gülcü > Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for > Java. > http://logback.qos.ch > _______________________________________________ > logback-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev >
_______________________________________________ logback-dev mailing list [email protected] http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-dev
