* Jim Dumont ([email protected]) wrote: > Hi there, > > Has anyone done a recent performance and characteristics comparison between > lttngust with syslog and printf? Things like memory & cpu footprint, tps, > i/o, disk space...
Not that I am aware of. > > I found this Windriver comparison from 2011: > https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fevents.linuxfoundation.org%2Fslides%2F2011%2Flinuxcon%2Flcna2011_wessel.pdf&ei=Y64TUu6qJqS62AXIqYCYCg&usg=AFQjCNF0Q05MytPYVNWBPnUjB9LEGJfQZA This presentation uses UST 0.x. This is _old_: it predates LTTng 2.0. > > And if I recall correctly, LTTng UST team also did a printf comparison > a while back, but was wondering if someone has done more recent > prototyping? Any comparisons with syslog? Not at this point. It would be interesting to compare: - lttng-ust, both in "discard" and "snapshot" modes, vs - printf with timestamp, vs - syslog Especially on multi-core systems, with applications generating a _lot_ of log/trace data. Thanks, Mathieu > > Regards, > > /Jim Dumont > > > _______________________________________________ > lttng-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
