As I am pretty sure you are aware, we’ve been doing extensive testing at Log4j using these performance tests and have come to the conclusionthat the way you have presented these results is terribly misleading. What they show is that Logback’s FileAppender currently performs better than Log4j 2’s (we are working on that). These tests show nothing in the way of asynchronous performance comparison since the queues/ring buffers are always full and the overhead of having to go through the queue or ring buffer is insignificant compared to the overhead of the synchronous logging.
While it is fine for you to claim better performance for the file appender in the specific releases you are testing I would ask that you change the page to not pretend it is comparing the performance of asynchronous operations as it doesn’t do that. You would need to modify the test so that the synchronous operation can complete in less time than it takes to enqueue an event so that the queues don’t fill up for it to really test the max speed of asynchronous operations. Also, I noticed that you have configured Logback’s FileAppender with a 256KB buffer but left Log4j2’s appender at its default of 8KB. By the way, it is good to see you back working on the projects again. Ralph > On Aug 23, 2021, at 9:55 AM, Ceki <c...@qos.ch> wrote: > > On 23.08.2021 17:32, David Roussel wrote: > > Good work Ceki. Impressive results. > > Thank you David. > > Please feel free to run the tests on your end to confirm the results. > > -- > Ceki Gülcü > _______________________________________________ > logback-user mailing list > logback-user@qos.ch > http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user _______________________________________________ logback-user mailing list logback-user@qos.ch http://mailman.qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
