subject:"Logback performance improvements"

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-13 Thread Mikael Ståldal

Let's think about what is the relevant metric for users. I guess that quite
some users value minimal slowdown of the application over maximal rate of
log events written out.

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:

> But I agree it is interesting to see that a simple (RAF)FileAppender will
> outperform async logging if the sustained logging rate is faster than the
> appender can handle for long enough to fill up the queue. I've heard people
> in the high performance computing world mention this but I hadn't seen
> actual numbers until now.
>
> It is good to gain an intuition on these things. Async Loggers (with LMAX
> Disruptor) performance is worse than a plain File but not terrible either.
> Interesting how LogbackAsyncFile seems to suffer more than
> log4j2AsyncAppender.
>
> And yes, JUL is so bad it is not funny any more. We did document that
> 
> but perhaps we need to evangelize it more...
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma 
> wrote:
>
>> The queue is bigger but still fills up quickly because all the benchmarks
>> do is add events as quickly as possible and the FileAppender can't keep up
>> with that rate.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2017, at 16:19, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> I added the tests so you guys could run them and take a look. I have no
>> problem with the changes being reverted.
>>
>> As I think I said, I expected most of the async appenders to back up. I
>> expected them to be a bit slower, but I didn’t expect them to be as slow as
>> they are when the queue is full. I also don’t understand why AsyncLogger is
>> slower as it should have a large ring buffer if I understand correctly.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it is a good idea to mix async tests with sync tests.
>>
>> We already have separate benchmarks for the various ways to log
>> asynchronously, if you want to compare them just run those also.
>>
>> JMH makes it super easy to build benchmarks but we have to be very
>> careful that the test really measures what we want to measure.
>>
>> Asynchronous logging has two "states", queue full and space available. Do
>> we want to measure the queue full state or the space available state (or
>> the transition between the two)?
>>
>> With a normal FileAppender JMH will iterate so fast that the queue
>> immediately fills up. This will likely happen during the warmup iterations
>> (no guarantee of course).
>>
>> What actually happens in that state? We used to block until space becomes
>> available in the queue. What we do now depends on the configured
>> AsyncQueueFullPolicy. Because blocking caused deadlocks in some scenarios,
>> our current default is to bypass the queue and log to the FileAppender
>> directly. I expect that to be slower than the simple FileAppender because
>> of the additional lock contention on the tail of the queue during the
>> attempted thread handover.
>>
>> The "queue full" state is not the normal logging state for an
>> application. If we want to measure this we should move these tests to a
>> separate benchmark that is clearly marked "QueueFullAsyncBenchmark" or
>> something like that.
>> Otherwise people reading these benchmark results will misinterpret them
>> and get confused.
>>
>> The existing Async benchmarks ensure they measure the "queue space
>> available" state.
>>
>> Remko
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2017, at 4:37, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> Just for fun I decided to add some more tests to the file appender
>> benchmark. I’ve checked them in. Please review them to see if everything is
>> configured so the tests make sense.
>>
>> Note that I would expect the async appenders to reduce to the speed of
>> the file appender, since once the queue fills up that is what they are
>> waiting on. But I didn’t set a buffer size for the disruptor or async
>> logger tests so I would have expected those to be quite a bit faster than
>> the regular file test.
>>
>> The one thing that is definitely worth noting is how truly terrible the
>> JUL file appender is. I have to assume that it must be doing an immediate
>> flush on every write.
>>
>> This is on my MacBook Pro - what Ceki would call Fast CPU/Fast SSD
>>
>> Benchmark  Mode  Samples
>> Score Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt
>> 1069.546 ±   2.635  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10
>>   783.006 ±  28.138  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10
>>   939.605 ±  38.655  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt
>> 10  1446.522 ±  45.485  ops/ms
>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-12 Thread Matt Sicker

I found a comment somewhere (probably an old comment) that asked why Log4j
2 even exists when you could just use JUL. I feel like maybe we should make
a JSR/JEP/whatever to deprecate JUL entirely.

On 12 February 2017 at 08:54, Remko Popma  wrote:

> #FriendsDontLetFriendsUseJavaUtilLogging
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Remko Popma 
> wrote:
>
>> But I agree it is interesting to see that a simple (RAF)FileAppender will
>> outperform async logging if the sustained logging rate is faster than the
>> appender can handle for long enough to fill up the queue. I've heard people
>> in the high performance computing world mention this but I hadn't seen
>> actual numbers until now.
>>
>> It is good to gain an intuition on these things. Async Loggers (with LMAX
>> Disruptor) performance is worse than a plain File but not terrible either.
>> Interesting how LogbackAsyncFile seems to suffer more than
>> log4j2AsyncAppender.
>>
>> And yes, JUL is so bad it is not funny any more. We did document that
>> 
>> but perhaps we need to evangelize it more...
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The queue is bigger but still fills up quickly because all the
>>> benchmarks do is add events as quickly as possible and the FileAppender
>>> can't keep up with that rate.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2017, at 16:19, Apache  wrote:
>>>
>>> I added the tests so you guys could run them and take a look. I have no
>>> problem with the changes being reverted.
>>>
>>> As I think I said, I expected most of the async appenders to back up. I
>>> expected them to be a bit slower, but I didn’t expect them to be as slow as
>>> they are when the queue is full. I also don’t understand why AsyncLogger is
>>> slower as it should have a large ring buffer if I understand correctly.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think it is a good idea to mix async tests with sync tests.
>>>
>>> We already have separate benchmarks for the various ways to log
>>> asynchronously, if you want to compare them just run those also.
>>>
>>> JMH makes it super easy to build benchmarks but we have to be very
>>> careful that the test really measures what we want to measure.
>>>
>>> Asynchronous logging has two "states", queue full and space available.
>>> Do we want to measure the queue full state or the space available state (or
>>> the transition between the two)?
>>>
>>> With a normal FileAppender JMH will iterate so fast that the queue
>>> immediately fills up. This will likely happen during the warmup iterations
>>> (no guarantee of course).
>>>
>>> What actually happens in that state? We used to block until space
>>> becomes available in the queue. What we do now depends on the configured
>>> AsyncQueueFullPolicy. Because blocking caused deadlocks in some scenarios,
>>> our current default is to bypass the queue and log to the FileAppender
>>> directly. I expect that to be slower than the simple FileAppender because
>>> of the additional lock contention on the tail of the queue during the
>>> attempted thread handover.
>>>
>>> The "queue full" state is not the normal logging state for an
>>> application. If we want to measure this we should move these tests to a
>>> separate benchmark that is clearly marked "QueueFullAsyncBenchmark" or
>>> something like that.
>>> Otherwise people reading these benchmark results will misinterpret them
>>> and get confused.
>>>
>>> The existing Async benchmarks ensure they measure the "queue space
>>> available" state.
>>>
>>> Remko
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2017, at 4:37, Apache  wrote:
>>>
>>> Just for fun I decided to add some more tests to the file appender
>>> benchmark. I’ve checked them in. Please review them to see if everything is
>>> configured so the tests make sense.
>>>
>>> Note that I would expect the async appenders to reduce to the speed of
>>> the file appender, since once the queue fills up that is what they are
>>> waiting on. But I didn’t set a buffer size for the disruptor or async
>>> logger tests so I would have expected those to be quite a bit faster than
>>> the regular file test.
>>>
>>> The one thing that is definitely worth noting is how truly terrible the
>>> JUL file appender is. I have to assume that it must be doing an immediate
>>> flush on every write.
>>>
>>> This is on my MacBook Pro - what Ceki would call Fast CPU/Fast SSD
>>>
>>> Benchmark  Mode  Samples
>>> Score Error   Units
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt
>>> 1069.546 ±   2.635  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt
>>> 10   783.006 ±  28.138  ops/ms
>>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-12 Thread Remko Popma

#FriendsDontLetFriendsUseJavaUtilLogging

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:

> But I agree it is interesting to see that a simple (RAF)FileAppender will
> outperform async logging if the sustained logging rate is faster than the
> appender can handle for long enough to fill up the queue. I've heard people
> in the high performance computing world mention this but I hadn't seen
> actual numbers until now.
>
> It is good to gain an intuition on these things. Async Loggers (with LMAX
> Disruptor) performance is worse than a plain File but not terrible either.
> Interesting how LogbackAsyncFile seems to suffer more than
> log4j2AsyncAppender.
>
> And yes, JUL is so bad it is not funny any more. We did document that
> 
> but perhaps we need to evangelize it more...
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma 
> wrote:
>
>> The queue is bigger but still fills up quickly because all the benchmarks
>> do is add events as quickly as possible and the FileAppender can't keep up
>> with that rate.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2017, at 16:19, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> I added the tests so you guys could run them and take a look. I have no
>> problem with the changes being reverted.
>>
>> As I think I said, I expected most of the async appenders to back up. I
>> expected them to be a bit slower, but I didn’t expect them to be as slow as
>> they are when the queue is full. I also don’t understand why AsyncLogger is
>> slower as it should have a large ring buffer if I understand correctly.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it is a good idea to mix async tests with sync tests.
>>
>> We already have separate benchmarks for the various ways to log
>> asynchronously, if you want to compare them just run those also.
>>
>> JMH makes it super easy to build benchmarks but we have to be very
>> careful that the test really measures what we want to measure.
>>
>> Asynchronous logging has two "states", queue full and space available. Do
>> we want to measure the queue full state or the space available state (or
>> the transition between the two)?
>>
>> With a normal FileAppender JMH will iterate so fast that the queue
>> immediately fills up. This will likely happen during the warmup iterations
>> (no guarantee of course).
>>
>> What actually happens in that state? We used to block until space becomes
>> available in the queue. What we do now depends on the configured
>> AsyncQueueFullPolicy. Because blocking caused deadlocks in some scenarios,
>> our current default is to bypass the queue and log to the FileAppender
>> directly. I expect that to be slower than the simple FileAppender because
>> of the additional lock contention on the tail of the queue during the
>> attempted thread handover.
>>
>> The "queue full" state is not the normal logging state for an
>> application. If we want to measure this we should move these tests to a
>> separate benchmark that is clearly marked "QueueFullAsyncBenchmark" or
>> something like that.
>> Otherwise people reading these benchmark results will misinterpret them
>> and get confused.
>>
>> The existing Async benchmarks ensure they measure the "queue space
>> available" state.
>>
>> Remko
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2017, at 4:37, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> Just for fun I decided to add some more tests to the file appender
>> benchmark. I’ve checked them in. Please review them to see if everything is
>> configured so the tests make sense.
>>
>> Note that I would expect the async appenders to reduce to the speed of
>> the file appender, since once the queue fills up that is what they are
>> waiting on. But I didn’t set a buffer size for the disruptor or async
>> logger tests so I would have expected those to be quite a bit faster than
>> the regular file test.
>>
>> The one thing that is definitely worth noting is how truly terrible the
>> JUL file appender is. I have to assume that it must be doing an immediate
>> flush on every write.
>>
>> This is on my MacBook Pro - what Ceki would call Fast CPU/Fast SSD
>>
>> Benchmark  Mode  Samples
>> Score Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt
>> 1069.546 ±   2.635  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10
>>   783.006 ±  28.138  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10
>>   939.605 ±  38.655  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt
>> 10  1446.522 ±  45.485  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger   thrpt
>> 10  1269.014 ±  27.236  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File  thrpt
>> 10

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-12 Thread Remko Popma

But I agree it is interesting to see that a simple (RAF)FileAppender will
outperform async logging if the sustained logging rate is faster than the
appender can handle for long enough to fill up the queue. I've heard people
in the high performance computing world mention this but I hadn't seen
actual numbers until now.

It is good to gain an intuition on these things. Async Loggers (with LMAX
Disruptor) performance is worse than a plain File but not terrible either.
Interesting how LogbackAsyncFile seems to suffer more than
log4j2AsyncAppender.

And yes, JUL is so bad it is not funny any more. We did document that

but perhaps we need to evangelize it more...


On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:

> The queue is bigger but still fills up quickly because all the benchmarks
> do is add events as quickly as possible and the FileAppender can't keep up
> with that rate.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 12, 2017, at 16:19, Apache  wrote:
>
> I added the tests so you guys could run them and take a look. I have no
> problem with the changes being reverted.
>
> As I think I said, I expected most of the async appenders to back up. I
> expected them to be a bit slower, but I didn’t expect them to be as slow as
> they are when the queue is full. I also don’t understand why AsyncLogger is
> slower as it should have a large ring buffer if I understand correctly.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>
> I don't think it is a good idea to mix async tests with sync tests.
>
> We already have separate benchmarks for the various ways to log
> asynchronously, if you want to compare them just run those also.
>
> JMH makes it super easy to build benchmarks but we have to be very careful
> that the test really measures what we want to measure.
>
> Asynchronous logging has two "states", queue full and space available. Do
> we want to measure the queue full state or the space available state (or
> the transition between the two)?
>
> With a normal FileAppender JMH will iterate so fast that the queue
> immediately fills up. This will likely happen during the warmup iterations
> (no guarantee of course).
>
> What actually happens in that state? We used to block until space becomes
> available in the queue. What we do now depends on the configured
> AsyncQueueFullPolicy. Because blocking caused deadlocks in some scenarios,
> our current default is to bypass the queue and log to the FileAppender
> directly. I expect that to be slower than the simple FileAppender because
> of the additional lock contention on the tail of the queue during the
> attempted thread handover.
>
> The "queue full" state is not the normal logging state for an application.
> If we want to measure this we should move these tests to a separate
> benchmark that is clearly marked "QueueFullAsyncBenchmark" or something
> like that.
> Otherwise people reading these benchmark results will misinterpret them
> and get confused.
>
> The existing Async benchmarks ensure they measure the "queue space
> available" state.
>
> Remko
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 12, 2017, at 4:37, Apache  wrote:
>
> Just for fun I decided to add some more tests to the file appender
> benchmark. I’ve checked them in. Please review them to see if everything is
> configured so the tests make sense.
>
> Note that I would expect the async appenders to reduce to the speed of the
> file appender, since once the queue fills up that is what they are waiting
> on. But I didn’t set a buffer size for the disruptor or async logger tests
> so I would have expected those to be quite a bit faster than the regular
> file test.
>
> The one thing that is definitely worth noting is how truly terrible the
> JUL file appender is. I have to assume that it must be doing an immediate
> flush on every write.
>
> This is on my MacBook Pro - what Ceki would call Fast CPU/Fast SSD
>
> Benchmark  Mode  Samples
>   Score Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt   10
>   69.546 ±   2.635  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10
>   783.006 ±  28.138  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10
>   939.605 ±  38.655  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt   10
> 1446.522 ±  45.485  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger   thrpt   10
> 1269.014 ±  27.236  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File  thrpt   10
> 1475.605 ±  74.675  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF   thrpt   10
> 2131.240 ± 114.184  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF   thrpt   10
> 1499.667 ±  39.668

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-11 Thread Remko Popma

The queue is bigger but still fills up quickly because all the benchmarks do is 
add events as quickly as possible and the FileAppender can't keep up with that 
rate. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 12, 2017, at 16:19, Apache  wrote:
> 
> I added the tests so you guys could run them and take a look. I have no 
> problem with the changes being reverted.
> 
> As I think I said, I expected most of the async appenders to back up. I 
> expected them to be a bit slower, but I didn’t expect them to be as slow as 
> they are when the queue is full. I also don’t understand why AsyncLogger is 
> slower as it should have a large ring buffer if I understand correctly.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>> 
>> I don't think it is a good idea to mix async tests with sync tests. 
>> 
>> We already have separate benchmarks for the various ways to log 
>> asynchronously, if you want to compare them just run those also. 
>> 
>> JMH makes it super easy to build benchmarks but we have to be very careful 
>> that the test really measures what we want to measure. 
>> 
>> Asynchronous logging has two "states", queue full and space available. Do we 
>> want to measure the queue full state or the space available state (or the 
>> transition between the two)?
>> 
>> With a normal FileAppender JMH will iterate so fast that the queue 
>> immediately fills up. This will likely happen during the warmup iterations 
>> (no guarantee of course). 
>> 
>> What actually happens in that state? We used to block until space becomes 
>> available in the queue. What we do now depends on the configured 
>> AsyncQueueFullPolicy. Because blocking caused deadlocks in some scenarios, 
>> our current default is to bypass the queue and log to the FileAppender 
>> directly. I expect that to be slower than the simple FileAppender because of 
>> the additional lock contention on the tail of the queue during the attempted 
>> thread handover. 
>> 
>> The "queue full" state is not the normal logging state for an application. 
>> If we want to measure this we should move these tests to a separate 
>> benchmark that is clearly marked "QueueFullAsyncBenchmark" or something like 
>> that. 
>> Otherwise people reading these benchmark results will misinterpret them and 
>> get confused. 
>> 
>> The existing Async benchmarks ensure they measure the "queue space 
>> available" state. 
>> 
>> Remko 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Feb 12, 2017, at 4:37, Apache  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Just for fun I decided to add some more tests to the file appender 
>>> benchmark. I’ve checked them in. Please review them to see if everything is 
>>> configured so the tests make sense. 
>>> 
>>> Note that I would expect the async appenders to reduce to the speed of the 
>>> file appender, since once the queue fills up that is what they are waiting 
>>> on. But I didn’t set a buffer size for the disruptor or async logger tests 
>>> so I would have expected those to be quite a bit faster than the regular 
>>> file test. 
>>> 
>>> The one thing that is definitely worth noting is how truly terrible the JUL 
>>> file appender is. I have to assume that it must be doing an immediate flush 
>>> on every write.
>>> 
>>> This is on my MacBook Pro - what Ceki would call Fast CPU/Fast SSD
>>> 
>>> Benchmark  Mode  Samples
>>>  Score Error   Units
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt   10
>>> 69.546 ±   2.635  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10   
>>> 783.006 ±  28.138  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10   
>>> 939.605 ±  38.655  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt   10  
>>> 1446.522 ±  45.485  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger   thrpt   10  
>>> 1269.014 ±  27.236  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File  thrpt   10  
>>> 1475.605 ±  74.675  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF   thrpt   10  
>>> 2131.240 ± 114.184  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF   thrpt   10  
>>> 1499.667 ±  39.668  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackAsyncFilethrpt   10   
>>> 326.969 ±   2.690  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt   10   
>>> 940.527 ±  34.090  ops/ms
>>> 
>>> And this is on my old MacBook Pro - it uses a hard drive so isn’t very fast.
>>> 
>>> Benchmark  Mode  Samples
>>>  Score Error   Units
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt   10
>>> 15.722 ±  15.557  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10   
>>> 530.668 ±  54.193

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-11 Thread Apache

I added the tests so you guys could run them and take a look. I have no problem 
with the changes being reverted.

As I think I said, I expected most of the async appenders to back up. I 
expected them to be a bit slower, but I didn’t expect them to be as slow as 
they are when the queue is full. I also don’t understand why AsyncLogger is 
slower as it should have a large ring buffer if I understand correctly.

Ralph

> On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:
> 
> I don't think it is a good idea to mix async tests with sync tests. 
> 
> We already have separate benchmarks for the various ways to log 
> asynchronously, if you want to compare them just run those also. 
> 
> JMH makes it super easy to build benchmarks but we have to be very careful 
> that the test really measures what we want to measure. 
> 
> Asynchronous logging has two "states", queue full and space available. Do we 
> want to measure the queue full state or the space available state (or the 
> transition between the two)?
> 
> With a normal FileAppender JMH will iterate so fast that the queue 
> immediately fills up. This will likely happen during the warmup iterations 
> (no guarantee of course). 
> 
> What actually happens in that state? We used to block until space becomes 
> available in the queue. What we do now depends on the configured 
> AsyncQueueFullPolicy. Because blocking caused deadlocks in some scenarios, 
> our current default is to bypass the queue and log to the FileAppender 
> directly. I expect that to be slower than the simple FileAppender because of 
> the additional lock contention on the tail of the queue during the attempted 
> thread handover. 
> 
> The "queue full" state is not the normal logging state for an application. If 
> we want to measure this we should move these tests to a separate benchmark 
> that is clearly marked "QueueFullAsyncBenchmark" or something like that. 
> Otherwise people reading these benchmark results will misinterpret them and 
> get confused. 
> 
> The existing Async benchmarks ensure they measure the "queue space available" 
> state. 
> 
> Remko 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Feb 12, 2017, at 4:37, Apache  > wrote:
> 
>> Just for fun I decided to add some more tests to the file appender 
>> benchmark. I’ve checked them in. Please review them to see if everything is 
>> configured so the tests make sense. 
>> 
>> Note that I would expect the async appenders to reduce to the speed of the 
>> file appender, since once the queue fills up that is what they are waiting 
>> on. But I didn’t set a buffer size for the disruptor or async logger tests 
>> so I would have expected those to be quite a bit faster than the regular 
>> file test. 
>> 
>> The one thing that is definitely worth noting is how truly terrible the JUL 
>> file appender is. I have to assume that it must be doing an immediate flush 
>> on every write.
>> 
>> This is on my MacBook Pro - what Ceki would call Fast CPU/Fast SSD
>> 
>> Benchmark  Mode  Samples 
>> Score Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt   10
>> 69.546 ±   2.635  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10   
>> 783.006 ±  28.138  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10   
>> 939.605 ±  38.655  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt   10  
>> 1446.522 ±  45.485  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger   thrpt   10  
>> 1269.014 ±  27.236  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File  thrpt   10  
>> 1475.605 ±  74.675  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF   thrpt   10  
>> 2131.240 ± 114.184  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF   thrpt   10  
>> 1499.667 ±  39.668  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackAsyncFilethrpt   10   
>> 326.969 ±   2.690  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt   10   
>> 940.527 ±  34.090  ops/ms
>> 
>> And this is on my old MacBook Pro - it uses a hard drive so isn’t very fast.
>> 
>> Benchmark  Mode  Samples 
>> Score Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt   10
>> 15.722 ±  15.557  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10   
>> 530.668 ±  54.193  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10   
>> 498.620 ± 178.693  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt   10   
>> 454.541 ± 145.505  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger   thrpt   10   
>> 527.784 ± 150.269  ops/ms
>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-11 Thread Remko Popma

I don't think it is a good idea to mix async tests with sync tests. 

We already have separate benchmarks for the various ways to log asynchronously, 
if you want to compare them just run those also. 

JMH makes it super easy to build benchmarks but we have to be very careful that 
the test really measures what we want to measure. 

Asynchronous logging has two "states", queue full and space available. Do we 
want to measure the queue full state or the space available state (or the 
transition between the two)?

With a normal FileAppender JMH will iterate so fast that the queue immediately 
fills up. This will likely happen during the warmup iterations (no guarantee of 
course). 

What actually happens in that state? We used to block until space becomes 
available in the queue. What we do now depends on the configured 
AsyncQueueFullPolicy. Because blocking caused deadlocks in some scenarios, our 
current default is to bypass the queue and log to the FileAppender directly. I 
expect that to be slower than the simple FileAppender because of the additional 
lock contention on the tail of the queue during the attempted thread handover. 

The "queue full" state is not the normal logging state for an application. If 
we want to measure this we should move these tests to a separate benchmark that 
is clearly marked "QueueFullAsyncBenchmark" or something like that. 
Otherwise people reading these benchmark results will misinterpret them and get 
confused. 

The existing Async benchmarks ensure they measure the "queue space available" 
state. 

Remko 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 12, 2017, at 4:37, Apache  wrote:
> 
> Just for fun I decided to add some more tests to the file appender benchmark. 
> I’ve checked them in. Please review them to see if everything is configured 
> so the tests make sense. 
> 
> Note that I would expect the async appenders to reduce to the speed of the 
> file appender, since once the queue fills up that is what they are waiting 
> on. But I didn’t set a buffer size for the disruptor or async logger tests so 
> I would have expected those to be quite a bit faster than the regular file 
> test. 
> 
> The one thing that is definitely worth noting is how truly terrible the JUL 
> file appender is. I have to assume that it must be doing an immediate flush 
> on every write.
> 
> This is on my MacBook Pro - what Ceki would call Fast CPU/Fast SSD
> 
> Benchmark  Mode  Samples 
> Score Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt   10
> 69.546 ±   2.635  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10   
> 783.006 ±  28.138  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10   
> 939.605 ±  38.655  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt   10  
> 1446.522 ±  45.485  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger   thrpt   10  
> 1269.014 ±  27.236  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File  thrpt   10  
> 1475.605 ±  74.675  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF   thrpt   10  
> 2131.240 ± 114.184  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF   thrpt   10  
> 1499.667 ±  39.668  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackAsyncFile thrpt   10   326.969 ± 
>   2.690  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt   10   
> 940.527 ±  34.090  ops/ms
> 
> And this is on my old MacBook Pro - it uses a hard drive so isn’t very fast.
> 
> Benchmark  Mode  Samples 
> Score Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt   10
> 15.722 ±  15.557  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10   
> 530.668 ±  54.193  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10   
> 498.620 ± 178.693  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt   10   
> 454.541 ± 145.505  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger   thrpt   10   
> 527.784 ± 150.269  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File  thrpt   10   
> 587.605 ±  97.769  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF   thrpt   10  
> 1966.092 ± 431.196  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF   thrpt   10   
> 364.694 ±  34.602  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackAsyncFile thrpt   10   258.220 ± 
>   1.936  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt   10   
> 560.958 ±  36.982  ops/ms
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> 
>> Also, there are some potential issues with logback-perf:
>> 
>> * JMH

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-11 Thread Matt Sicker

Whoa, I wonder how async MMF benchmarks compare. Also, I wonder if there's
some sort of cloud service out there we can use for free to run benchmarks
on a regular basis. Might even be doable with a dedicated VM on
builds.apache.org.

On 11 February 2017 at 13:37, Apache  wrote:

> Just for fun I decided to add some more tests to the file appender
> benchmark. I’ve checked them in. Please review them to see if everything is
> configured so the tests make sense.
>
> Note that I would expect the async appenders to reduce to the speed of the
> file appender, since once the queue fills up that is what they are waiting
> on. But I didn’t set a buffer size for the disruptor or async logger tests
> so I would have expected those to be quite a bit faster than the regular
> file test.
>
> The one thing that is definitely worth noting is how truly terrible the
> JUL file appender is. I have to assume that it must be doing an immediate
> flush on every write.
>
> This is on my MacBook Pro - what Ceki would call Fast CPU/Fast SSD
>
> Benchmark  Mode  Samples
>   Score Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt   10
>   69.546 ±   2.635  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10
>   783.006 ±  28.138  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10
>   939.605 ±  38.655  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt   10
> 1446.522 ±  45.485  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger   thrpt   10
> 1269.014 ±  27.236  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File  thrpt   10
> 1475.605 ±  74.675  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF   thrpt   10
> 2131.240 ± 114.184  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF   thrpt   10
> 1499.667 ±  39.668  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackAsyncFilethrpt   10
>   326.969 ±   2.690  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt   10
>   940.527 ±  34.090  ops/ms
>
> And this is on my old MacBook Pro - it uses a hard drive so isn’t very
> fast.
>
> Benchmark  Mode  Samples
>   Score Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt   10
>15.722 ±  15.557  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10
>   530.668 ±  54.193  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10
>   498.620 ± 178.693  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt   10
>   454.541 ± 145.505  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger   thrpt   10
>   527.784 ± 150.269  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File  thrpt   10
>   587.605 ±  97.769  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF   thrpt   10
>  1966.092 ± 431.196  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF   thrpt   10
>   364.694 ±  34.602  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackAsyncFilethrpt   10
>   258.220 ±   1.936  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt   10
>   560.958 ±  36.982  ops/ms
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> Also, there are some potential issues with logback-perf:
>
> * JMH is way out of date (1.11.3 versus 1.17.4)
> * Less warmup iterations than we do
>
> Anyways, results for 32 threads (8 core environment):
>
> Benchmark   Mode  Cnt ScoreError   Units
> FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File   thrpt   10   695.774 ±  9.567  ops/ms
> FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File   thrpt   10  1300.091 ± 17.579  ops/ms
> FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAFthrpt   10  1365.118 ± 17.656  ops/ms
> FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile  thrpt   10   766.294 ± 10.121  ops/ms
>
> On 9 February 2017 at 14:37, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> That value does look messed up. I'll re-run the 32 thread tests. Also,
>> I'm not on the logback lists yet, so I'll sign up this afternoon.
>>
>> On 9 February 2017 at 14:35, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> What is up with that score for 32 threads?  That can’t possibly be
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> I ran the logback-perf repo on the same AWS instance. Here's the CSV
>>> data. It appears as soon as more than one thread comes into play, log4j2
>>> has better scores.
>>>
>>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
>>> (99.9%)","Unit"
>>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrp
>>> t",1,10,964.600470,279.139021,"ops/ms"
>>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-11 Thread Apache

Just for fun I decided to add some more tests to the file appender benchmark. 
I’ve checked them in. Please review them to see if everything is configured so 
the tests make sense. 

Note that I would expect the async appenders to reduce to the speed of the file 
appender, since once the queue fills up that is what they are waiting on. But I 
didn’t set a buffer size for the disruptor or async logger tests so I would 
have expected those to be quite a bit faster than the regular file test. 

The one thing that is definitely worth noting is how truly terrible the JUL 
file appender is. I have to assume that it must be doing an immediate flush on 
every write.

This is on my MacBook Pro - what Ceki would call Fast CPU/Fast SSD

Benchmark  Mode  Samples 
Score Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt   10
69.546 ±   2.635  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10   
783.006 ±  28.138  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10   
939.605 ±  38.655  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt   10  
1446.522 ±  45.485  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger   thrpt   10  
1269.014 ±  27.236  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File  thrpt   10  
1475.605 ±  74.675  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF   thrpt   10  
2131.240 ± 114.184  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF   thrpt   10  
1499.667 ±  39.668  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackAsyncFilethrpt   10   
326.969 ±   2.690  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt   10   
940.527 ±  34.090  ops/ms

And this is on my old MacBook Pro - it uses a hard drive so isn’t very fast.

Benchmark  Mode  Samples 
Score Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFile thrpt   10
15.722 ±  15.557  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File  thrpt   10   
530.668 ±  54.193  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncAppender thrpt   10   
498.620 ± 178.693  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncDisruptorthrpt   10   
454.541 ± 145.505  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2AsyncLogger   thrpt   10   
527.784 ± 150.269  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File  thrpt   10   
587.605 ±  97.769  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF   thrpt   10  
1966.092 ± 431.196  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF   thrpt   10   
364.694 ±  34.602  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackAsyncFilethrpt   10   
258.220 ±   1.936  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile thrpt   10   
560.958 ±  36.982  ops/ms

Ralph

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> Also, there are some potential issues with logback-perf:
> 
> * JMH is way out of date (1.11.3 versus 1.17.4)
> * Less warmup iterations than we do
> 
> Anyways, results for 32 threads (8 core environment):
> 
> Benchmark   Mode  Cnt ScoreError   Units
> FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File   thrpt   10   695.774 ±  9.567  ops/ms
> FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File   thrpt   10  1300.091 ± 17.579  ops/ms
> FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAFthrpt   10  1365.118 ± 17.656  ops/ms
> FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile  thrpt   10   766.294 ± 10.121  ops/ms
> 
> On 9 February 2017 at 14:37, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> That value does look messed up. I'll re-run the 32 thread tests. Also, I'm 
> not on the logback lists yet, so I'll sign up this afternoon.
> 
> On 9 February 2017 at 14:35, Apache  > wrote:
> What is up with that score for 32 threads?  That can’t possibly be correct.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I ran the logback-perf repo on the same AWS instance. Here's the CSV data. 
>> It appears as soon as more than one thread comes into play, log4j2 has 
>> better scores.
>> 
>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",1,10,964.600470,279.139021,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",1,10,1274.682156,6.179197,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",1,10,1257.026405,32.898682,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",1,10,1363.683525,41.884725,"ops/ms"
>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Matt Sicker

Also, there are some potential issues with logback-perf:

* JMH is way out of date (1.11.3 versus 1.17.4)
* Less warmup iterations than we do

Anyways, results for 32 threads (8 core environment):

Benchmark   Mode  Cnt ScoreError   Units
FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File   thrpt   10   695.774 ±  9.567  ops/ms
FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File   thrpt   10  1300.091 ± 17.579  ops/ms
FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAFthrpt   10  1365.118 ± 17.656  ops/ms
FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile  thrpt   10   766.294 ± 10.121  ops/ms

On 9 February 2017 at 14:37, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> That value does look messed up. I'll re-run the 32 thread tests. Also, I'm
> not on the logback lists yet, so I'll sign up this afternoon.
>
> On 9 February 2017 at 14:35, Apache  wrote:
>
>> What is up with that score for 32 threads?  That can’t possibly be
>> correct.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I ran the logback-perf repo on the same AWS instance. Here's the CSV
>> data. It appears as soon as more than one thread comes into play, log4j2
>> has better scores.
>>
>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
>> (99.9%)","Unit"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","
>> thrpt",1,10,964.600470,279.139021,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","
>> thrpt",1,10,1274.682156,6.179197,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","
>> thrpt",1,10,1257.026405,32.898682,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","
>> thrpt",1,10,1363.683525,41.884725,"ops/ms"
>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
>> (99.9%)","Unit"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","
>> thrpt",2,10,687.304803,13.266922,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","
>> thrpt",2,10,1386.596198,207.305249,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","
>> thrpt",2,10,1579.884762,24.098318,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","
>> thrpt",2,10,953.138212,99.156775,"ops/ms"
>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
>> (99.9%)","Unit"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","
>> thrpt",4,10,670.442970,15.049614,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","
>> thrpt",4,10,1218.543593,18.234077,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","
>> thrpt",4,10,1309.092881,31.547936,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","
>> thrpt",4,10,845.168355,24.547390,"ops/ms"
>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
>> (99.9%)","Unit"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","
>> thrpt",8,10,689.805339,7.415023,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","
>> thrpt",8,10,1196.396592,19.360776,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","
>> thrpt",8,10,1319.477318,10.601260,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","
>> thrpt",8,10,816.608726,25.603234,"ops/ms"
>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
>> (99.9%)","Unit"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","
>> thrpt",16,10,687.623660,16.114008,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","
>> thrpt",16,10,1203.649145,8.835115,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","
>> thrpt",16,10,1266.241778,7.564414,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","
>> thrpt",16,10,789.507183,9.866592,"ops/ms"
>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
>> (99.9%)","Unit"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","
>> thrpt",32,10,690.252411,11.587858,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","
>> thrpt",32,10,1514185.478492,126804.168771,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","
>> thrpt",32,10,1264.049209,28.309088,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","
>> thrpt",32,10,754.828687,14.865909,"ops/ms"
>> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
>> (99.9%)","Unit"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","
>> thrpt",64,10,670.498518,11.147198,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","
>> thrpt",64,10,1293.301940,22.687086,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","
>> thrpt",64,10,1380.527892,14.907542,"ops/ms"
>> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","
>> thrpt",64,10,750.528159,11.356281,"ops/ms"
>>
>> On 9 February 2017 at 13:02, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> You might try running Ceki’s benchmark project on AWS and publish those
>>> numbers here. He also asked people to publish numbers on the Logback user’s
>>> list so he can add

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Matt Sicker

That value does look messed up. I'll re-run the 32 thread tests. Also, I'm
not on the logback lists yet, so I'll sign up this afternoon.

On 9 February 2017 at 14:35, Apache  wrote:

> What is up with that score for 32 threads?  That can’t possibly be correct.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I ran the logback-perf repo on the same AWS instance. Here's the CSV data.
> It appears as soon as more than one thread comes into play, log4j2 has
> better scores.
>
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
> (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",1,10,964.
> 600470,279.139021,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",1,10,1274.
> 682156,6.179197,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",1,10,1257.
> 026405,32.898682,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",1,10,
> 1363.683525,41.884725,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
> (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",2,10,687.
> 304803,13.266922,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",2,10,1386.
> 596198,207.305249,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",2,10,1579.
> 884762,24.098318,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",2,10,953.
> 138212,99.156775,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
> (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",4,10,670.
> 442970,15.049614,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",4,10,1218.
> 543593,18.234077,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",4,10,1309.
> 092881,31.547936,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",4,10,845.
> 168355,24.547390,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
> (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",8,10,689.
> 805339,7.415023,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",8,10,1196.
> 396592,19.360776,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",8,10,1319.
> 477318,10.601260,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",8,10,816.
> 608726,25.603234,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
> (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",16,10,687.
> 623660,16.114008,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",16,10,
> 1203.649145,8.835115,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",16,10,1266.
> 241778,7.564414,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",16,10,
> 789.507183,9.866592,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
> (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",32,10,690.
> 252411,11.587858,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",32,10,
> 1514185.478492,126804.168771,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",32,10,1264.
> 049209,28.309088,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",32,10,
> 754.828687,14.865909,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error
> (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",64,10,670.
> 498518,11.147198,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",64,10,
> 1293.301940,22.687086,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",64,10,1380.
> 527892,14.907542,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",64,10,
> 750.528159,11.356281,"ops/ms"
>
> On 9 February 2017 at 13:02, Apache  wrote:
>
>> You might try running Ceki’s benchmark project on AWS and publish those
>> numbers here. He also asked people to publish numbers on the Logback user’s
>> list so he can add them to his spreadsheet.
>>
>> From your numbers and the numbers I’ve been getting, it is clear to me
>> that the SSDs in Apple’s MacBook’s are pretty awesome. From the hardware
>> Remko is listing I’d say his machine is about as old as my other MacBook
>> except that he has an SSD that is slightly faster than my hard drive.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> Ran on an AWS instance (CentOS 7.2), cpuinfo says 8-core Intel(R) Xeon(R)
>> CPU E5-2666 v3 @ 2.90GHz, not super sure about all the params involved in
>> making the instance, but here's some data (same strangeness with MMF):
>>
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Apache

What is up with that score for 32 threads?  That can’t possibly be correct.

Ralph

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I ran the logback-perf repo on the same AWS instance. Here's the CSV data. It 
> appears as soon as more than one thread comes into play, log4j2 has better 
> scores.
> 
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",1,10,964.600470,279.139021,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",1,10,1274.682156,6.179197,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",1,10,1257.026405,32.898682,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",1,10,1363.683525,41.884725,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",2,10,687.304803,13.266922,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",2,10,1386.596198,207.305249,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",2,10,1579.884762,24.098318,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",2,10,953.138212,99.156775,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",4,10,670.442970,15.049614,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",4,10,1218.543593,18.234077,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",4,10,1309.092881,31.547936,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",4,10,845.168355,24.547390,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",8,10,689.805339,7.415023,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",8,10,1196.396592,19.360776,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",8,10,1319.477318,10.601260,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",8,10,816.608726,25.603234,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",16,10,687.623660,16.114008,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",16,10,1203.649145,8.835115,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",16,10,1266.241778,7.564414,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",16,10,789.507183,9.866592,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",32,10,690.252411,11.587858,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",32,10,1514185.478492,126804.168771,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",32,10,1264.049209,28.309088,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",32,10,754.828687,14.865909,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",64,10,670.498518,11.147198,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",64,10,1293.301940,22.687086,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",64,10,1380.527892,14.907542,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",64,10,750.528159,11.356281,"ops/ms"
> 
> On 9 February 2017 at 13:02, Apache  > wrote:
> You might try running Ceki’s benchmark project on AWS and publish those 
> numbers here. He also asked people to publish numbers on the Logback user’s 
> list so he can add them to his spreadsheet.
> 
> From your numbers and the numbers I’ve been getting, it is clear to me that 
> the SSDs in Apple’s MacBook’s are pretty awesome. From the hardware Remko is 
> listing I’d say his machine is about as old as my other MacBook except that 
> he has an SSD that is slightly faster than my hard drive.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ran on an AWS instance (CentOS 7.2), cpuinfo says 8-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) 
>> CPU E5-2666 v3 @ 2.90GHz, not super sure about all the params involved in 
>> making the instance, but here's some data (same strangeness with MMF):
>> 
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
>>  Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1086.867 ±  
>>  4.502  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   671.156 ±  
>>  7.099  ops/ms
>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Apache

At least Logback is now consistently performing better than Log4j 1.

Ralph

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I ran the logback-perf repo on the same AWS instance. Here's the CSV data. It 
> appears as soon as more than one thread comes into play, log4j2 has better 
> scores.
> 
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",1,10,964.600470,279.139021,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",1,10,1274.682156,6.179197,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",1,10,1257.026405,32.898682,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",1,10,1363.683525,41.884725,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",2,10,687.304803,13.266922,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",2,10,1386.596198,207.305249,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",2,10,1579.884762,24.098318,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",2,10,953.138212,99.156775,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",4,10,670.442970,15.049614,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",4,10,1218.543593,18.234077,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",4,10,1309.092881,31.547936,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",4,10,845.168355,24.547390,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",8,10,689.805339,7.415023,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",8,10,1196.396592,19.360776,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",8,10,1319.477318,10.601260,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",8,10,816.608726,25.603234,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",16,10,687.623660,16.114008,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",16,10,1203.649145,8.835115,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",16,10,1266.241778,7.564414,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",16,10,789.507183,9.866592,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",32,10,690.252411,11.587858,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",32,10,1514185.478492,126804.168771,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",32,10,1264.049209,28.309088,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",32,10,754.828687,14.865909,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",64,10,670.498518,11.147198,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",64,10,1293.301940,22.687086,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",64,10,1380.527892,14.907542,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",64,10,750.528159,11.356281,"ops/ms"
> 
> On 9 February 2017 at 13:02, Apache  > wrote:
> You might try running Ceki’s benchmark project on AWS and publish those 
> numbers here. He also asked people to publish numbers on the Logback user’s 
> list so he can add them to his spreadsheet.
> 
> From your numbers and the numbers I’ve been getting, it is clear to me that 
> the SSDs in Apple’s MacBook’s are pretty awesome. From the hardware Remko is 
> listing I’d say his machine is about as old as my other MacBook except that 
> he has an SSD that is slightly faster than my hard drive.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ran on an AWS instance (CentOS 7.2), cpuinfo says 8-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) 
>> CPU E5-2666 v3 @ 2.90GHz, not super sure about all the params involved in 
>> making the instance, but here's some data (same strangeness with MMF):
>> 
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
>>  Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1086.867 ±  
>>  4.502  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   671.156 ±  
>>  7.099  ops/ms
>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Apache

Feel free to post them on the Logback user list. There is a performance thread 
there where Ceki asked for that feedback.

Ralph

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I ran the logback-perf repo on the same AWS instance. Here's the CSV data. It 
> appears as soon as more than one thread comes into play, log4j2 has better 
> scores.
> 
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",1,10,964.600470,279.139021,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",1,10,1274.682156,6.179197,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",1,10,1257.026405,32.898682,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",1,10,1363.683525,41.884725,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",2,10,687.304803,13.266922,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",2,10,1386.596198,207.305249,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",2,10,1579.884762,24.098318,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",2,10,953.138212,99.156775,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",4,10,670.442970,15.049614,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",4,10,1218.543593,18.234077,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",4,10,1309.092881,31.547936,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",4,10,845.168355,24.547390,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",8,10,689.805339,7.415023,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",8,10,1196.396592,19.360776,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",8,10,1319.477318,10.601260,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",8,10,816.608726,25.603234,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",16,10,687.623660,16.114008,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",16,10,1203.649145,8.835115,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",16,10,1266.241778,7.564414,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",16,10,789.507183,9.866592,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",32,10,690.252411,11.587858,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",32,10,1514185.478492,126804.168771,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",32,10,1264.049209,28.309088,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",32,10,754.828687,14.865909,"ops/ms"
> "Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",64,10,670.498518,11.147198,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",64,10,1293.301940,22.687086,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",64,10,1380.527892,14.907542,"ops/ms"
> "ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",64,10,750.528159,11.356281,"ops/ms"
> 
> On 9 February 2017 at 13:02, Apache  > wrote:
> You might try running Ceki’s benchmark project on AWS and publish those 
> numbers here. He also asked people to publish numbers on the Logback user’s 
> list so he can add them to his spreadsheet.
> 
> From your numbers and the numbers I’ve been getting, it is clear to me that 
> the SSDs in Apple’s MacBook’s are pretty awesome. From the hardware Remko is 
> listing I’d say his machine is about as old as my other MacBook except that 
> he has an SSD that is slightly faster than my hard drive.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ran on an AWS instance (CentOS 7.2), cpuinfo says 8-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) 
>> CPU E5-2666 v3 @ 2.90GHz, not super sure about all the params involved in 
>> making the instance, but here's some data (same strangeness with MMF):
>> 
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
>>  Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1086.867 ±  
>>  4.502  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   671.156 ±

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Matt Sicker

I ran the logback-perf repo on the same AWS instance. Here's the CSV data.
It appears as soon as more than one thread comes into play, log4j2 has
better scores.

"Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",1,10,964.600470,279.139021,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",1,10,1274.682156,6.179197,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",1,10,1257.026405,32.898682,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",1,10,1363.683525,41.884725,"ops/ms"
"Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",2,10,687.304803,13.266922,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",2,10,1386.596198,207.305249,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",2,10,1579.884762,24.098318,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",2,10,953.138212,99.156775,"ops/ms"
"Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",4,10,670.442970,15.049614,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",4,10,1218.543593,18.234077,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",4,10,1309.092881,31.547936,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",4,10,845.168355,24.547390,"ops/ms"
"Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",8,10,689.805339,7.415023,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",8,10,1196.396592,19.360776,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",8,10,1319.477318,10.601260,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",8,10,816.608726,25.603234,"ops/ms"
"Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",16,10,687.623660,16.114008,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",16,10,1203.649145,8.835115,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",16,10,1266.241778,7.564414,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",16,10,789.507183,9.866592,"ops/ms"
"Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",32,10,690.252411,11.587858,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",32,10,1514185.478492,126804.168771,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",32,10,1264.049209,28.309088,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",32,10,754.828687,14.865909,"ops/ms"
"Benchmark","Mode","Threads","Samples","Score","Score Error (99.9%)","Unit"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File","thrpt",64,10,670.498518,11.147198,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File","thrpt",64,10,1293.301940,22.687086,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF","thrpt",64,10,1380.527892,14.907542,"ops/ms"
"ch.qos.logback.perf.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFile","thrpt",64,10,750.528159,11.356281,"ops/ms"

On 9 February 2017 at 13:02, Apache  wrote:

> You might try running Ceki’s benchmark project on AWS and publish those
> numbers here. He also asked people to publish numbers on the Logback user’s
> list so he can add them to his spreadsheet.
>
> From your numbers and the numbers I’ve been getting, it is clear to me
> that the SSDs in Apple’s MacBook’s are pretty awesome. From the hardware
> Remko is listing I’d say his machine is about as old as my other MacBook
> except that he has an SSD that is slightly faster than my hard drive.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> Ran on an AWS instance (CentOS 7.2), cpuinfo says 8-core Intel(R) Xeon(R)
> CPU E5-2666 v3 @ 2.90GHz, not super sure about all the params involved in
> making the instance, but here's some data (same strangeness with MMF):
>
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1086.867
> ±   4.502  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   671.156
> ±   7.099  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1221.814
> ±  22.130  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1178.407
> ± 960.141  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1220.746
> ±  34.421  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Apache

You might try running Ceki’s benchmark project on AWS and publish those numbers 
here. He also asked people to publish numbers on the Logback user’s list so he 
can add them to his spreadsheet.

From your numbers and the numbers I’ve been getting, it is clear to me that the 
SSDs in Apple’s MacBook’s are pretty awesome. From the hardware Remko is 
listing I’d say his machine is about as old as my other MacBook except that he 
has an SSD that is slightly faster than my hard drive.

Ralph

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> Ran on an AWS instance (CentOS 7.2), cpuinfo says 8-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 
> E5-2666 v3 @ 2.90GHz, not super sure about all the params involved in making 
> the instance, but here's some data (same strangeness with MMF):
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1086.867 ±   
> 4.502  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   671.156 ±   
> 7.099  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1221.814 ±  
> 22.130  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1178.407 ± 
> 960.141  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1220.746 ±  
> 34.421  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   898.122 ±   
> 8.128  ops/ms
> 
> On 9 February 2017 at 12:02, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> Run on a MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015) 2.5 GHz Intel Core i7. Can 
> find out more hardware specs if needed. I also noticed that the memory mapped 
> file starts out fast and slows down over time (somewhat seen by the error 
> value here).
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1096.540 ±   
> 7.875  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   766.286 ±  
> 11.461  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1787.620 ±  
> 36.695  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1506.588 ± 
> 956.354  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1934.966 ±  
> 50.089  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10  1285.066 ±  
> 12.674  ops/ms
> 
> On 9 February 2017 at 11:44, Remko Popma  > wrote:
> My results on Windows 10 64-bit laptop (java 1.8.0_51 64bit), i5-3317u CPU @ 
> 1.70GHz (dual core with hyperthreading for 4 virtual cores), SSD hard disk:
> 
> java -jar log4j-perf/target/benchmarks.jar ".*FileAppenderBenchmark.*" -f 1 
> -wi 10 -i 20 -t 4 -tu ms
> 
> # Run complete. Total time: 00:03:58
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   2037.646 ±   
> 0.876  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   405.305 ±   
> 6.596  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20   751.949 ±  
> 16.055  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   20  1250.666 ± 
> 168.757  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20   728.743 ±  
> 23.909  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   676.926 ±  
> 19.518  ops/ms
> 
> 
> Logback config without immediateFlush=false:
> 
> # Run complete. Total time: 00:03:44
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   2037.949 ±   
> 1.220  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   404.042 ±   
> 8.450  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20   690.393 ± 
> 115.537  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   20  1221.681 ±  
> 82.205  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20   823.059 ±  
> 41.512  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   2083.352 ±  
> 11.911  ops/ms
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Mikael Ståldal  > wrote:
> I guess that with a memory mapped file, you leave it to the OS to do the best 
> it can, and you lose any direct control over how it is actually done.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Apache  > wrote:
> On my Mac Pro with the slower external SSD I now got:
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
> Error   Units
>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Matt Sicker

Ran on an AWS instance (CentOS 7.2), cpuinfo says 8-core Intel(R) Xeon(R)
CPU E5-2666 v3 @ 2.90GHz, not super sure about all the params involved in
making the instance, but here's some data (same strangeness with MMF):

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
  Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1086.867 ±
  4.502  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   671.156 ±
  7.099  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1221.814 ±
 22.130  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1178.407 ±
960.141  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1220.746 ±
 34.421  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   898.122 ±
  8.128  ops/ms

On 9 February 2017 at 12:02, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> Run on a MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015) 2.5 GHz Intel Core i7.
> Can find out more hardware specs if needed. I also noticed that the memory
> mapped file starts out fast and slows down over time (somewhat seen by the
> error value here).
>
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1096.540
> ±   7.875  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   766.286
> ±  11.461  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1787.620
> ±  36.695  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1506.588
> ± 956.354  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1934.966
> ±  50.089  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10  1285.066
> ±  12.674  ops/ms
>
> On 9 February 2017 at 11:44, Remko Popma  wrote:
>
>> My results on Windows 10 64-bit laptop (java 1.8.0_51 64bit), i5-3317u
>> CPU @ 1.70GHz (dual core with hyperthreading for 4 virtual cores), SSD hard
>> disk:
>>
>> java -jar log4j-perf/target/benchmarks.jar ".*FileAppenderBenchmark.*"
>> -f 1 -wi 10 -i 20 -t 4 -tu ms
>>
>> # Run complete. Total time: 00:03:58
>>
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
>> Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
>>  37.646 ±   0.876  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20
>> 405.305 ±   6.596  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20
>> 751.949 ±  16.055  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   20
>>  1250.666 ± 168.757  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20
>> 728.743 ±  23.909  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20
>> 676.926 ±  19.518  ops/ms
>>
>> 
>> Logback config without immediateFlush=false:
>>
>> # Run complete. Total time: 00:03:44
>>
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
>> Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
>>  37.949 ±   1.220  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20
>> 404.042 ±   8.450  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20
>> 690.393 ± 115.537  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   20
>>  1221.681 ±  82.205  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20
>> 823.059 ±  41.512  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20
>>  83.352 ±  11.911  ops/ms
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Mikael Ståldal <
>> mikael.stal...@magine.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess that with a memory mapped file, you leave it to the OS to do the
>>> best it can, and you lose any direct control over how it is actually done.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Apache 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On my Mac Pro with the slower external SSD I now got:

 Benchmark Mode  Samples
 Score Error   Units
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   10
 73.739 ±   0.740  ops/ms
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10
 683.129 ±   9.407  ops/ms
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10
 991.293 ± 193.049  ops/ms
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10
 3072.250 ±  63.475  ops/ms
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10
 1056.256 ± 137.673  ops/ms
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10
 784.723 ± 153.226  ops/ms

 and on the same machine with the faster internal SSD I got:

 Benchmark Mode  Samples
 Score Error

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Matt Sicker

Run on a MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015) 2.5 GHz Intel Core i7. Can
find out more hardware specs if needed. I also noticed that the memory
mapped file starts out fast and slows down over time (somewhat seen by the
error value here).

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
  Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1096.540 ±
  7.875  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   766.286 ±
 11.461  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1787.620 ±
 36.695  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1506.588 ±
956.354  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1934.966 ±
 50.089  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10  1285.066 ±
 12.674  ops/ms

On 9 February 2017 at 11:44, Remko Popma  wrote:

> My results on Windows 10 64-bit laptop (java 1.8.0_51 64bit), i5-3317u CPU
> @ 1.70GHz (dual core with hyperthreading for 4 virtual cores), SSD hard
> disk:
>
> java -jar log4j-perf/target/benchmarks.jar ".*FileAppenderBenchmark.*" -f
> 1 -wi 10 -i 20 -t 4 -tu ms
>
> # Run complete. Total time: 00:03:58
>
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   2037.646
> ±   0.876  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   405.305
> ±   6.596  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20   751.949
> ±  16.055  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   20  1250.666
> ± 168.757  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20   728.743
> ±  23.909  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   676.926
> ±  19.518  ops/ms
>
> 
> Logback config without immediateFlush=false:
>
> # Run complete. Total time: 00:03:44
>
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   2037.949
> ±   1.220  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   404.042
> ±   8.450  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20   690.393
> ± 115.537  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   20  1221.681
> ±  82.205  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20   823.059
> ±  41.512  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   2083.352
> ±  11.911  ops/ms
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Mikael Ståldal  > wrote:
>
>> I guess that with a memory mapped file, you leave it to the OS to do the
>> best it can, and you lose any direct control over how it is actually done.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Apache 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On my Mac Pro with the slower external SSD I now got:
>>>
>>> Benchmark Mode  Samples
>>> Score Error   Units
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   10
>>> 73.739 ±   0.740  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10
>>> 683.129 ±   9.407  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10
>>> 991.293 ± 193.049  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10
>>> 3072.250 ±  63.475  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10
>>> 1056.256 ± 137.673  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10
>>> 784.723 ± 153.226  ops/ms
>>>
>>> and on the same machine with the faster internal SSD I got:
>>>
>>> Benchmark Mode  Samples
>>> Score Error   Units
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   10
>>> 74.661 ±   0.232  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10
>>> 647.041 ±   2.994  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10
>>> 1333.887 ±  13.921  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10
>>> 3025.726 ± 210.414  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10
>>> 1433.620 ±  11.194  ops/ms
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10
>>> 1026.319 ±  13.347  ops/ms
>>>
>>> I will continue to run this on a few other configurations. I think I
>>> would also like to add the async appenders/loggers to this test so that one
>>> can see all the various options.
>>>
>>> It is really quite interesting to me to see how the memory mapped
>>> appender behaves so differently from one machine to another. I don’t know
>>> under what circumstances I would recommend using it though.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Remko Popma

My results on Windows 10 64-bit laptop (java 1.8.0_51 64bit), i5-3317u CPU
@ 1.70GHz (dual core with hyperthreading for 4 virtual cores), SSD hard
disk:

java -jar log4j-perf/target/benchmarks.jar ".*FileAppenderBenchmark.*" -f 1
-wi 10 -i 20 -t 4 -tu ms

# Run complete. Total time: 00:03:58

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
  Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   2037.646 ±
  0.876  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   405.305 ±
  6.596  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20   751.949 ±
 16.055  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   20  1250.666 ±
168.757  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20   728.743 ±
 23.909  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   676.926 ±
 19.518  ops/ms


Logback config without immediateFlush=false:

# Run complete. Total time: 00:03:44

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
  Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   2037.949 ±
  1.220  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   404.042 ±
  8.450  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20   690.393 ±
115.537  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   20  1221.681 ±
 82.205  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20   823.059 ±
 41.512  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   2083.352 ±
 11.911  ops/ms


On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
wrote:

> I guess that with a memory mapped file, you leave it to the OS to do the
> best it can, and you lose any direct control over how it is actually done.
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Apache  wrote:
>
>> On my Mac Pro with the slower external SSD I now got:
>>
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
>> Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   10
>> 73.739 ±   0.740  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10
>> 683.129 ±   9.407  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10
>> 991.293 ± 193.049  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10
>> 3072.250 ±  63.475  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10
>> 1056.256 ± 137.673  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10
>> 784.723 ± 153.226  ops/ms
>>
>> and on the same machine with the faster internal SSD I got:
>>
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
>> Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   10
>> 74.661 ±   0.232  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10
>> 647.041 ±   2.994  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10
>> 1333.887 ±  13.921  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10
>> 3025.726 ± 210.414  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10
>> 1433.620 ±  11.194  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10
>> 1026.319 ±  13.347  ops/ms
>>
>> I will continue to run this on a few other configurations. I think I
>> would also like to add the async appenders/loggers to this test so that one
>> can see all the various options.
>>
>> It is really quite interesting to me to see how the memory mapped
>> appender behaves so differently from one machine to another. I don’t know
>> under what circumstances I would recommend using it though.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> After modifying the configuration the new results on my laptop are:
>>
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples
>> Score  Error   Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   10
>> 92.580 ±3.698  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10
>> 828.707 ±   55.006  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10
>> 1647.230 ±  125.682  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10
>> 1465.002 ± 1284.943  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10
>> 1765.340 ±  149.707  ops/ms
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10
>> 1192.594 ±   57.777  ops/ms
>>
>> I will try the other machines later and post those results.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> Ceki replied on twitter that the immediateFlush option is now a parameter
>> of the appended, not

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Mikael Ståldal

I guess that with a memory mapped file, you leave it to the OS to do the
best it can, and you lose any direct control over how it is actually done.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Apache  wrote:

> On my Mac Pro with the slower external SSD I now got:
>
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1073.739
> ±   0.740  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   683.129
> ±   9.407  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10   991.293
> ± 193.049  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  3072.250
> ±  63.475  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1056.256
> ± 137.673  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   784.723
> ± 153.226  ops/ms
>
> and on the same machine with the faster internal SSD I got:
>
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1074.661
> ±   0.232  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   647.041
> ±   2.994  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1333.887
> ±  13.921  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  3025.726
> ± 210.414  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1433.620
> ±  11.194  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10  1026.319
> ±  13.347  ops/ms
>
> I will continue to run this on a few other configurations. I think I would
> also like to add the async appenders/loggers to this test so that one can
> see all the various options.
>
> It is really quite interesting to me to see how the memory mapped appender
> behaves so differently from one machine to another. I don’t know under what
> circumstances I would recommend using it though.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
> After modifying the configuration the new results on my laptop are:
>
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1092.580
> ±3.698  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   828.707
> ±   55.006  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1647.230
> ±  125.682  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1465.002
> ± 1284.943  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1765.340
> ±  149.707  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10  1192.594
> ±   57.777  ops/ms
>
> I will try the other machines later and post those results.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
> Ceki replied on twitter that the immediateFlush option is now a parameter
> of the appended, not the encoder, so it looks like the confit needs to be
> changed and the test rerun.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>
> FYI, The write and flush methods in BufferedOutputStream are also
> synchronized, so we won't be able to do away with synchronization
> completely.
>
> In OutputStreamManager we synchronize multiple methods but these are
> nested calls. I thought reentrant synchronization had negligible overhead
> but I haven't measured this myself.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:31, Apache  wrote:
>
> I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many
> methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write.
> Unfortunately, I can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how dispersed
> the code has gotten.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
> I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but
> discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
> The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a
> lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a
> BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is writing to it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now
> between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized
> on the append method.
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file
>> appender based on

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Apache

On my Mac Pro with the slower external SSD I now got:

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1073.739 ±   
0.740  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   683.129 ±   
9.407  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10   991.293 ± 
193.049  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  3072.250 ±  
63.475  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1056.256 ± 
137.673  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   784.723 ± 
153.226  ops/ms

and on the same machine with the faster internal SSD I got:

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1074.661 ±   
0.232  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   647.041 ±   
2.994  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1333.887 ±  
13.921  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  3025.726 ± 
210.414  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1433.620 ±  
11.194  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10  1026.319 ±  
13.347  ops/ms

I will continue to run this on a few other configurations. I think I would also 
like to add the async appenders/loggers to this test so that one can see all 
the various options. 

It is really quite interesting to me to see how the memory mapped appender 
behaves so differently from one machine to another. I don’t know under what 
circumstances I would recommend using it though.

Ralph


> On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Apache  wrote:
> 
> After modifying the configuration the new results on my laptop are:
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
>  Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1092.580 ±   
>  3.698  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   828.707 ±   
> 55.006  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1647.230 ±  
> 125.682  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1465.002 ± 
> 1284.943  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1765.340 ±  
> 149.707  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10  1192.594 ±   
> 57.777  ops/ms
> 
> I will try the other machines later and post those results.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ceki replied on twitter that the immediateFlush option is now a parameter of 
>> the appended, not the encoder, so it looks like the confit needs to be 
>> changed and the test rerun.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Remko Popma > > wrote:
>> 
>>> FYI, The write and flush methods in BufferedOutputStream are also 
>>> synchronized, so we won't be able to do away with synchronization 
>>> completely. 
>>> 
>>> In OutputStreamManager we synchronize multiple methods but these are nested 
>>> calls. I thought reentrant synchronization had negligible overhead but I 
>>> haven't measured this myself. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:31, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> 
 I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many 
 methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write. 
 Unfortunately, I can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how 
 dispersed the code has gotten.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache  > wrote:
> 
> I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but 
> discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer. 
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires 
>> a lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just 
>> uses a BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is 
>> writing to it.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference 
>>> now between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't 
>>> synchronized on the append method.
>>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Apache

It is there now.

Ralph

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:46 AM, Remko Popma  wrote:
> 
> can you push the correct config?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Apache  > wrote:
> After modifying the configuration the new results on my laptop are:
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
>  Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1092.580 ±   
>  3.698  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   828.707 ±   
> 55.006  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1647.230 ±  
> 125.682  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1465.002 ± 
> 1284.943  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1765.340 ±  
> 149.707  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10  1192.594 ±   
> 57.777  ops/ms
> 
> I will try the other machines later and post those results.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ceki replied on twitter that the immediateFlush option is now a parameter of 
>> the appended, not the encoder, so it looks like the confit needs to be 
>> changed and the test rerun.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Remko Popma > > wrote:
>> 
>>> FYI, The write and flush methods in BufferedOutputStream are also 
>>> synchronized, so we won't be able to do away with synchronization 
>>> completely. 
>>> 
>>> In OutputStreamManager we synchronize multiple methods but these are nested 
>>> calls. I thought reentrant synchronization had negligible overhead but I 
>>> haven't measured this myself. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:31, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> 
 I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many 
 methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write. 
 Unfortunately, I can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how 
 dispersed the code has gotten.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache  > wrote:
> 
> I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but 
> discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer. 
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires 
>> a lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just 
>> uses a BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is 
>> writing to it.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference 
>>> now between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't 
>>> synchronized on the append method.
>>> 
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
>>> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
>>> OutputStream?
>>> 
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing 
>>> list. 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my 
>>> two MacBooks are at 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
>>>  
>>> .
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache > wrote:
 
 Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the 
 only way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging 
 frameworks.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> 
> This is all in a

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Remko Popma

can you push the correct config?

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Apache  wrote:

> After modifying the configuration the new results on my laptop are:
>
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1092.580
> ±3.698  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   828.707
> ±   55.006  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1647.230
> ±  125.682  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1465.002
> ± 1284.943  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1765.340
> ±  149.707  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10  1192.594
> ±   57.777  ops/ms
>
> I will try the other machines later and post those results.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
> Ceki replied on twitter that the immediateFlush option is now a parameter
> of the appended, not the encoder, so it looks like the confit needs to be
> changed and the test rerun.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>
> FYI, The write and flush methods in BufferedOutputStream are also
> synchronized, so we won't be able to do away with synchronization
> completely.
>
> In OutputStreamManager we synchronize multiple methods but these are
> nested calls. I thought reentrant synchronization had negligible overhead
> but I haven't measured this myself.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:31, Apache  wrote:
>
> I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many
> methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write.
> Unfortunately, I can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how dispersed
> the code has gotten.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
> I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but
> discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
> The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a
> lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a
> BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is writing to it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now
> between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized
> on the append method.
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file
>> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of
>> OutputStream?
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing
>>> list. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0
>>> RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>>
>>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my
>>> two MacBooks are at https://docs.google.com/spread
>>> sheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache  wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only
>>> way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  wrote:
>>>
 Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It
 shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and
 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.

 Ralph

 On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with
 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which
 appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool
 to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and
 logback.

 On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache  wrote:

> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf to
> compare your results to Ceki’s.  You also should capture the cpubenchmark
> speed of your processor and get the speed of your hard drive. I used
> Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Apache

After modifying the configuration the new results on my laptop are:

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score  
Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1092.580 ±
3.698  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   828.707 ±   
55.006  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1647.230 ±  
125.682  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1465.002 ± 
1284.943  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1765.340 ±  
149.707  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10  1192.594 ±   
57.777  ops/ms

I will try the other machines later and post those results.

Ralph


> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:22 AM, Apache  wrote:
> 
> Ceki replied on twitter that the immediateFlush option is now a parameter of 
> the appended, not the encoder, so it looks like the confit needs to be 
> changed and the test rerun.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Remko Popma  > wrote:
> 
>> FYI, The write and flush methods in BufferedOutputStream are also 
>> synchronized, so we won't be able to do away with synchronization 
>> completely. 
>> 
>> In OutputStreamManager we synchronize multiple methods but these are nested 
>> calls. I thought reentrant synchronization had negligible overhead but I 
>> haven't measured this myself. 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:31, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>>> I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many 
>>> methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write. 
>>> Unfortunately, I can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how dispersed 
>>> the code has gotten.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache > wrote:
 
 I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but 
 discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer. 
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache  > wrote:
> 
> The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a 
> lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a 
> BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is writing to 
> it.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference 
>> now between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't 
>> synchronized on the append method.
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
>> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
>> OutputStream?
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache > > wrote:
>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing 
>> list. 
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my 
>> two MacBooks are at 
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
>>  
>> .
>>  
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the 
>>> only way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging 
>>> frameworks.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 
 This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's 
 rather interesting.
 
 On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache > wrote:
 Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It 
 shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 
 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Apache

Ceki replied on twitter that the immediateFlush option is now a parameter of 
the appended, not the encoder, so it looks like the confit needs to be changed 
and the test rerun.

Ralph

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Remko Popma  wrote:
> 
> FYI, The write and flush methods in BufferedOutputStream are also 
> synchronized, so we won't be able to do away with synchronization completely. 
> 
> In OutputStreamManager we synchronize multiple methods but these are nested 
> calls. I thought reentrant synchronization had negligible overhead but I 
> haven't measured this myself. 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:31, Apache  wrote:
>> 
>> I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many 
>> methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write. Unfortunately, 
>> I can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how dispersed the code has 
>> gotten.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but 
>>> discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer. 
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
 
 The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a 
 lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a 
 BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is writing to it.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference 
> now between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't 
> synchronized on the append method.
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
>> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
>> OutputStream?
>> 
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  wrote:
>>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing 
>>> list. 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>> 
>>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my 
>>> two MacBooks are at 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache  wrote:
 
 Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the 
 only way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging 
 frameworks.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's 
> rather interesting.
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  
> wrote:
>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  
>> It shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat 
>> better and 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender 
>>> with 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer 
>>> size (which appears to be the default), and memory mapped file 
>>> appender. It'd be cool to see how these compose with async logging 
>>> enabled in both log4j and logback.
>>> 
>>> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache  
>>> wrote:
 You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf to 
 compare your results to Ceki’s.  You also should capture the 
 cpubenchmark speed of your processor and get the speed of your 
 hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing 
 my results in a Google spreadsheet. I will post the like once I 
 have it.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory  
> wrote:
> 
> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on 
> Windows again.
> 
> Let me know what args/command line...
> 
> Gary
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  
>> wrote:

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Remko Popma

FYI, The write and flush methods in BufferedOutputStream are also synchronized, 
so we won't be able to do away with synchronization completely. 

In OutputStreamManager we synchronize multiple methods but these are nested 
calls. I thought reentrant synchronization had negligible overhead but I 
haven't measured this myself. 


Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:31, Apache  wrote:
> 
> I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many 
> methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write. Unfortunately, 
> I can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how dispersed the code has 
> gotten.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
>> 
>> I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but 
>> discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer. 
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a 
>>> lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a 
>>> BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is writing to it.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
 
 I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now 
 between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized 
 on the append method.
 
 On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
> OutputStream?
> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  wrote:
>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing 
>> list. 
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>> 
>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my 
>> two MacBooks are at 
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing.
>>  
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the 
>>> only way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging 
>>> frameworks.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
 
 This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's 
 rather interesting.
 
 On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  wrote:
> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  
> It shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better 
> and 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> 
>> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender 
>> with 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer 
>> size (which appears to be the default), and memory mapped file 
>> appender. It'd be cool to see how these compose with async logging 
>> enabled in both log4j and logback.
>> 
>> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache  
>> wrote:
>>> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf to 
>>> compare your results to Ceki’s.  You also should capture the 
>>> cpubenchmark speed of your processor and get the speed of your hard 
>>> drive. I used Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing my 
>>> results in a Google spreadsheet. I will post the like once I have 
>>> it.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory  
 wrote:
 
 If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on 
 Windows again.
 
 Let me know what args/command line...
 
 Gary
 
> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  
> wrote:
> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive 
> category. With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples   
>  Score   Error  Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20   
>  98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-09 Thread Remko Popma

I will try taking a look when I get home from work tonight. 

Ceki reported some strange numbers about Log4j 1 outperforming Log4j2 before, 
and when we showed results from 3 or 4 environments that disproved his claims, 
he never really explained how that happened. 

Not sure if there's some issue with his test setup... I would definitely double 
check his numbers. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 14:12, Apache  wrote:
> 
> Logback 1.2 has been released. I just ran our performance benchmarks against 
> it and I am mystified. Logback 1.2 is coming out almost 4 times slower than 
> 1.1.10. Can someone please verify my results?
> 
> I am running them with
> 
> java -jar target/benchmarks.jar ".*FileAppenderBenchmark.*" -f 1 -wi 10 -i 10 
> -t 4 -tu ms
> 
> This is on my MacBook Pro (mid-2015) with a 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 and a fast 
> SSD.
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
>  Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1094.052 ±   
> 13.645  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   838.130 ±   
> 11.205  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1844.284 ±   
> 72.803  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  2041.727 ± 
> 1260.868  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1879.691 ±   
> 93.162  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   287.678 ±   
>  8.516  ops/ms
> 
> 
> This is on a Mac Pro (mid-2013) with a 3.5 GHz Intel 6 Core Xeon E5 with an 
> external USB SSD.
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1067.616 ±   
> 8.256  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   607.507 ±  
> 87.307  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10   668.316 ± 
> 124.457  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  3174.031 ± 
> 149.277  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10   839.811 ± 
> 154.662  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   175.482 ±   
> 0.869  ops/ms
> 
> This is also on the same Map Pro (mid-2013) but using the faster internal SSD.
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1075.435 ±   
> 0.287  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   735.162 ±   
> 5.182  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1346.217 ±  
> 13.955  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  2439.903 ± 
> 355.553  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1507.775 ±   
> 9.600  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   184.796 ±   
> 2.052  ops/ms
> 
> Finally, this is on my old MacBook Pro (Late-2011) 2.5GHz Intel Core i5 with 
> an internal hard drive.
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
>  Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1039.181 ±   
>  3.315  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   485.160 ±   
> 98.892  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10   551.578 ±  
> 120.902  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1720.083 ± 
> 1113.734  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10   561.398 ±  
> 226.339  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   161.530 ±   
>  4.585  ops/ms
> 
> The news page at Logback says that it has major performance improvements but 
> these numbers are 3-4 times slower than what I got with 1.1.10.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Apache  wrote:
>> 
>> I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many 
>> methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write. Unfortunately, 
>> I can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how dispersed the code has 
>> gotten.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but 
>>> discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer. 
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
 
 The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a 
 lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a 
 BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-08 Thread Apache

Logback 1.2 has been released. I just ran our performance benchmarks against it 
and I am mystified. Logback 1.2 is coming out almost 4 times slower than 
1.1.10. Can someone please verify my results?

I am running them with

java -jar target/benchmarks.jar ".*FileAppenderBenchmark.*" -f 1 -wi 10 -i 10 
-t 4 -tu ms

This is on my MacBook Pro (mid-2015) with a 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 and a fast 
SSD.

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score  
Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1094.052 ±   
13.645  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   838.130 ±   
11.205  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1844.284 ±   
72.803  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  2041.727 ± 
1260.868  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1879.691 ±   
93.162  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   287.678 ±
8.516  ops/ms


This is on a Mac Pro (mid-2013) with a 3.5 GHz Intel 6 Core Xeon E5 with an 
external USB SSD.

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1067.616 ±   
8.256  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   607.507 ±  
87.307  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10   668.316 ± 
124.457  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  3174.031 ± 
149.277  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10   839.811 ± 
154.662  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   175.482 ±   
0.869  ops/ms

This is also on the same Map Pro (mid-2013) but using the faster internal SSD.

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1075.435 ±   
0.287  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   735.162 ±   
5.182  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1346.217 ±  
13.955  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  2439.903 ± 
355.553  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  1507.775 ±   
9.600  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   184.796 ±   
2.052  ops/ms

Finally, this is on my old MacBook Pro (Late-2011) 2.5GHz Intel Core i5 with an 
internal hard drive.

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score  
Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1039.181 ±
3.315  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   485.160 ±   
98.892  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10   551.578 ±  
120.902  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1720.083 ± 
1113.734  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10   561.398 ±  
226.339  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   161.530 ±
4.585  ops/ms

The news page at Logback says that it has major performance improvements but 
these numbers are 3-4 times slower than what I got with 1.1.10.

Ralph


 






> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Apache  wrote:
> 
> I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many 
> methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write. Unfortunately, 
> I can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how dispersed the code has 
> gotten.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but 
>> discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer. 
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a 
>>> lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a 
>>> BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is writing to it.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 
 I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now 
 between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized 
 on the append method.
 
 On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
 appender based on FileChannel or

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-08 Thread Apache

I’m pretty sure the problem we have is that a) we are synchronizing many 
methods and b) we are synchronizing more than just the write. Unfortunately, I 
can’t figure out how to reduce that based on how dispersed the code has gotten.

Ralph

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
> 
> I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but 
> discovered I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer. 
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a 
>> lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a 
>> BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is writing to it.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now 
>>> between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized 
>>> on the append method.
>>> 
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
>>> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
>>> OutputStream?
>>> 
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing list. 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my two 
>>> MacBooks are at 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
>>>  
>>> .
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache > wrote:
 
 Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only 
 way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> 
> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather 
> interesting.
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  > wrote:
> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It 
> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 
> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 
>> 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size 
>> (which appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd 
>> be cool to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both 
>> log4j and logback.
>> 
>> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache > > wrote:
>> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf 
>>  to compare your results to 
>> Ceki’s.  You also should capture the cpubenchmark speed of your 
>> processor and get the speed of your hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed 
>> test on my Mac. I am capturing my results in a Google spreadsheet. I 
>> will post the like once I have it.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows 
>>> again.
>>> 
>>> Let me know what args/command line...
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache" >> > wrote:
>>> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive 
>>> category. With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>>> 
>>> Benchmark Mode  Samples
>>> Score   Error  Units
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
>>> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   
>>> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-08 Thread Apache

I tried to modify FileManager to just use a BufferedOutputStream but discovered 
I couldn’t as the layouts now require the ByteBuffer. 

Ralph

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Apache  wrote:
> 
> The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a 
> lock. His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a 
> BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is writing to it.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now 
>> between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized 
>> on the append method.
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
>> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
>> OutputStream?
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache > > wrote:
>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing list. 
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my two 
>> MacBooks are at 
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
>>  
>> .
>>  
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only 
>>> way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 
 This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather 
 interesting.
 
 On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache > wrote:
 Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It 
 shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 
 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> 
> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 
> 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size 
> (which appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd 
> be cool to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j 
> and logback.
> 
> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache  > wrote:
> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf 
>  to compare your results to Ceki’s. 
>  You also should capture the cpubenchmark speed of your processor and get 
> the speed of your hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I 
> am capturing my results in a Google spreadsheet. I will post the like 
> once I have it.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory > > wrote:
>> 
>> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows 
>> again.
>> 
>> Let me know what args/command line...
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache" > > wrote:
>> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive 
>> category. With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>> 
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples
>> Score   Error  Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
>> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   
>> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20  
>> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20  
>> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   
>> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
>> 
>> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything 
>> directly on bare metal any more.
>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-08 Thread Remko Popma

Is it possible that the memory mapped file starts resizing and remapping at 
this point?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 15:12, Apache  wrote:
> 
> I used a ThreadLocal byte buffer and wrote to the file channel and if 
> anything, it performed slightly worse. This is probably because I had to 
> write after ever event, not when the buffer was full, otherwise the ordering 
> of events in the output would get messed up.
> 
> I decided to throw the MemoryMappedFileAppender into the mix and I got some 
> very strange behavior. Using Logback 1.1.10 the overall results with 4 
> threads were:
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
> Error   Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1098.886 ±  
> 10.855  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   826.640 ±  
> 14.219  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1861.518 ± 
> 139.885  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1478.489 ± 
> 970.526  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  2023.783 ±  
> 41.284  ops/ms
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   997.495 ±  
> 42.801  ops/ms
> 
> What is strange is the actual output from the run for the 
> MemoryMappedFileAppender. You will notice that it starts off like a bat out 
> of hell but then bogs down terribly. I’d love to know why.
> 
> # VM invoker: 
> /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_65.jdk/Contents/Home/jre/bin/java
> # VM options: 
> # Warmup: 10 iterations, 1 s each
> # Measurement: 10 iterations, 1 s each
> # Timeout: 10 min per iteration
> # Threads: 4 threads, will synchronize iterations
> # Benchmark mode: Throughput, ops/time
> # Benchmark: org.apache.logging.log4j.perf.jmh.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF
> 
> # Run progress: 50.00% complete, ETA 00:01:14
> # Fork: 1 of 1
> # Warmup Iteration   1: 2546.240 ops/ms
> # Warmup Iteration   2: 3071.504 ops/ms
> # Warmup Iteration   3: 2980.503 ops/ms
> # Warmup Iteration   4: 2709.490 ops/ms
> # Warmup Iteration   5: 2661.919 ops/ms
> # Warmup Iteration   6: 2610.875 ops/ms
> # Warmup Iteration   7: 2663.431 ops/ms
> # Warmup Iteration   8: 2675.847 ops/ms
> # Warmup Iteration   9: 2755.735 ops/ms
> # Warmup Iteration  10: 2666.353 ops/ms
> Iteration   1: 2577.419 ops/ms
> Iteration   2: 2804.161 ops/ms
> Iteration   3: 1179.059 ops/ms
> Iteration   4: 1167.719 ops/ms
> Iteration   5: 1170.686 ops/ms
> Iteration   6: 1246.053 ops/ms
> Iteration   7: 1173.593 ops/ms
> Iteration   8: 1196.317 ops/ms
> Iteration   9: 1127.199 ops/ms
> Iteration  10: 1142.684 ops/ms
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 10:55 AM, Apache  wrote:
>> 
>> True, but I would still like to also see what difference it makes using the 
>> FileChannel instead of the OutputStream.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>> 
>>> That is all doable but it may be a good idea to test if that is really 
>>> where the bottleneck is. 
>>> We could try whether we get better numbers if we remove the current 
>>> synchronization (ignoring any scrambled output, just for testing purposes).
>>> 
>>> 
 On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Apache  wrote:
 In looking at FileManager and OutputStreamManager it does have a 
 ByteBuffer but it requires synchronization. I am thinking it might make 
 more sense to have a ThreadLocal ByteBuffer and then pass that to 
 FileChannel.write() so that no synchronization is required.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> Can't we use the ByteBuffers introduced in the GC-free epic? I was under 
> the impression that byte arrays being passed to appenders was created 
> from a ByteBuffer at this point, though I haven't really taken a close 
> look at this.
> 
> On 7 February 2017 at 10:05, Apache  wrote:
>> A FileChannel is guaranteed to be thread safe. You can obtain a 
>> FileChannel from a FlieOutputStream, so that would seem to imply that 
>> FileOutputStream might be thread-safe, but you can’t really know that 
>> without looking at the source. The problem is that FileChannel.write() 
>> takes a ByteBuffer whereas FileOutputStream.write() accepts a byte 
>> array. To be thread safe it would have to safely copy the byte array 
>> into the byte buffer to pass to the FileChannel. But FileOutputStream 
>> doesn’t use the FileChannel at all in Java 7. It calls a native method 
>> that doesn’t specify whether it is thread-safe or not, so simply 
>> removing the synchronization isn’t guaranteed to work properly. 
>> 
>> OTOH, RandomAccessFile doesn’t say that it is thread-safe either and we 
>> are not

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-07 Thread Apache

The append method isn’t synchronized but the writeBytes method acquires a lock. 
His code is actually a lot simpler than ours in that it just uses a 
BufferedOutputStream and he only obtains the lock when he is writing to it.

Ralph

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now 
> between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized on 
> the append method.
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
> OutputStream?
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  > wrote:
> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing list. 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>  
> 
> 
> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my two 
> MacBooks are at 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> .
>  
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only way 
>> to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather 
>>> interesting.
>>> 
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It 
>>> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 
>>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 
 I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 
 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which 
 appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool 
 to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and 
 logback.
 
 On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache > wrote:
 You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf 
  to compare your results to Ceki’s.  
 You also should capture the cpubenchmark speed of your processor and get 
 the speed of your hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am 
 capturing my results in a Google spreadsheet. I will post the like once I 
 have it.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory  > wrote:
> 
> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows 
> again.
> 
> Let me know what args/command line...
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  > wrote:
> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive category. 
> With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples
> Score   Error  Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   
> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20  
> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20  
> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   
> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
> 
> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything 
> directly on bare metal any more.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender. 
>> See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html  
>> and 
>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-07 Thread Apache

I used a ThreadLocal byte buffer and wrote to the file channel and if anything, 
it performed slightly worse. This is probably because I had to write after ever 
event, not when the buffer was full, otherwise the ordering of events in the 
output would get messed up.

I decided to throw the MemoryMappedFileAppender into the mix and I got some 
very strange behavior. Using Logback 1.1.10 the overall results with 4 threads 
were:

Benchmark Mode  Samples Score 
Error   Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   1098.886 ±  
10.855  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   10   826.640 ±  
14.219  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   10  1861.518 ± 
139.885  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF  thrpt   10  1478.489 ± 
970.526  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   10  2023.783 ±  
41.284  ops/ms
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   10   997.495 ±  
42.801  ops/ms

What is strange is the actual output from the run for the 
MemoryMappedFileAppender. You will notice that it starts off like a bat out of 
hell but then bogs down terribly. I’d love to know why.

# VM invoker: 
/Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk1.8.0_65.jdk/Contents/Home/jre/bin/java
# VM options: 
# Warmup: 10 iterations, 1 s each
# Measurement: 10 iterations, 1 s each
# Timeout: 10 min per iteration
# Threads: 4 threads, will synchronize iterations
# Benchmark mode: Throughput, ops/time
# Benchmark: org.apache.logging.log4j.perf.jmh.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2MMF

# Run progress: 50.00% complete, ETA 00:01:14
# Fork: 1 of 1
# Warmup Iteration   1: 2546.240 ops/ms
# Warmup Iteration   2: 3071.504 ops/ms
# Warmup Iteration   3: 2980.503 ops/ms
# Warmup Iteration   4: 2709.490 ops/ms
# Warmup Iteration   5: 2661.919 ops/ms
# Warmup Iteration   6: 2610.875 ops/ms
# Warmup Iteration   7: 2663.431 ops/ms
# Warmup Iteration   8: 2675.847 ops/ms
# Warmup Iteration   9: 2755.735 ops/ms
# Warmup Iteration  10: 2666.353 ops/ms
Iteration   1: 2577.419 ops/ms
Iteration   2: 2804.161 ops/ms
Iteration   3: 1179.059 ops/ms
Iteration   4: 1167.719 ops/ms
Iteration   5: 1170.686 ops/ms
Iteration   6: 1246.053 ops/ms
Iteration   7: 1173.593 ops/ms
Iteration   8: 1196.317 ops/ms
Iteration   9: 1127.199 ops/ms
Iteration  10: 1142.684 ops/ms

Ralph


> On Feb 7, 2017, at 10:55 AM, Apache  wrote:
> 
> True, but I would still like to also see what difference it makes using the 
> FileChannel instead of the OutputStream.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Remko Popma > > wrote:
>> 
>> That is all doable but it may be a good idea to test if that is really where 
>> the bottleneck is. 
>> We could try whether we get better numbers if we remove the current 
>> synchronization (ignoring any scrambled output, just for testing purposes).
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> In looking at FileManager and OutputStreamManager it does have a ByteBuffer 
>> but it requires synchronization. I am thinking it might make more sense to 
>> have a ThreadLocal ByteBuffer and then pass that to FileChannel.write() so 
>> that no synchronization is required.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Can't we use the ByteBuffers introduced in the GC-free epic? I was under 
>>> the impression that byte arrays being passed to appenders was created from 
>>> a ByteBuffer at this point, though I haven't really taken a close look at 
>>> this.
>>> 
>>> On 7 February 2017 at 10:05, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> A FileChannel is guaranteed to be thread safe. You can obtain a FileChannel 
>>> from a FlieOutputStream, so that would seem to imply that FileOutputStream 
>>> might be thread-safe, but you can’t really know that without looking at the 
>>> source. The problem is that FileChannel.write() takes a ByteBuffer whereas 
>>> FileOutputStream.write() accepts a byte array. To be thread safe it would 
>>> have to safely copy the byte array into the byte buffer to pass to the 
>>> FileChannel. But FileOutputStream doesn’t use the FileChannel at all in 
>>> Java 7. It calls a native method that doesn’t specify whether it is 
>>> thread-safe or not, so simply removing the synchronization isn’t guaranteed 
>>> to work properly. 
>>> 
>>> OTOH, RandomAccessFile doesn’t say that it is thread-safe either and we are 
>>> not synchronizing writes to it.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:37 AM, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 
 I looked at 1.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.1.10 and saw nothing special other than a 
 lack of a

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-07 Thread Apache

True, but I would still like to also see what difference it makes using the 
FileChannel instead of the OutputStream.

Ralph

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Remko Popma  wrote:
> 
> That is all doable but it may be a good idea to test if that is really where 
> the bottleneck is. 
> We could try whether we get better numbers if we remove the current 
> synchronization (ignoring any scrambled output, just for testing purposes).
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Apache  > wrote:
> In looking at FileManager and OutputStreamManager it does have a ByteBuffer 
> but it requires synchronization. I am thinking it might make more sense to 
> have a ThreadLocal ByteBuffer and then pass that to FileChannel.write() so 
> that no synchronization is required.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> Can't we use the ByteBuffers introduced in the GC-free epic? I was under the 
>> impression that byte arrays being passed to appenders was created from a 
>> ByteBuffer at this point, though I haven't really taken a close look at this.
>> 
>> On 7 February 2017 at 10:05, Apache > > wrote:
>> A FileChannel is guaranteed to be thread safe. You can obtain a FileChannel 
>> from a FlieOutputStream, so that would seem to imply that FileOutputStream 
>> might be thread-safe, but you can’t really know that without looking at the 
>> source. The problem is that FileChannel.write() takes a ByteBuffer whereas 
>> FileOutputStream.write() accepts a byte array. To be thread safe it would 
>> have to safely copy the byte array into the byte buffer to pass to the 
>> FileChannel. But FileOutputStream doesn’t use the FileChannel at all in Java 
>> 7. It calls a native method that doesn’t specify whether it is thread-safe 
>> or not, so simply removing the synchronization isn’t guaranteed to work 
>> properly. 
>> 
>> OTOH, RandomAccessFile doesn’t say that it is thread-safe either and we are 
>> not synchronizing writes to it.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:37 AM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I looked at 1.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.1.10 and saw nothing special other than a 
>>> lack of a synchronized keyword on the equivalent append method. Perhaps he 
>>> figured out a simpler way to emulate locking?
>>> 
>>> I've been working with async/non-blocking streaming APIs for long enough 
>>> now that I can't even remember the last time I had to write an actual lock.
>>> 
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 22:02, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Remko Popma > wrote:
 
 Sorry what 1.2 do you mean? 
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:06, Apache > wrote:
 
> In 1.2?  That may work for a FileOutputStream but it isn’t guaranteed to 
> work for others.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference 
>> now between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't 
>> synchronized on the append method.
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
>> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
>> OutputStream?
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache > > wrote:
>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing 
>> list. 
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my 
>> two MacBooks are at 
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
>>  
>> .
>>  
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the 
>>> only way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging 
>>> frameworks.

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-07 Thread Mikael Ståldal

We should try to override getBuffer()/drain()/flushBuffer() from
OutputStreamManager in FileManager and RandomAccessFileManager (just like
we do in MenoryMappedFileManager).


On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:

> That is all doable but it may be a good idea to test if that is really
> where the bottleneck is.
> We could try whether we get better numbers if we remove the current
> synchronization (ignoring any scrambled output, just for testing purposes).
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
>> In looking at FileManager and OutputStreamManager it does have a
>> ByteBuffer but it requires synchronization. I am thinking it might make
>> more sense to have a ThreadLocal ByteBuffer and then pass that to
>> FileChannel.write() so that no synchronization is required.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> Can't we use the ByteBuffers introduced in the GC-free epic? I was under
>> the impression that byte arrays being passed to appenders was created from
>> a ByteBuffer at this point, though I haven't really taken a close look at
>> this.
>>
>> On 7 February 2017 at 10:05, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> A FileChannel is guaranteed to be thread safe. You can obtain a
>>> FileChannel from a FlieOutputStream, so that would seem to imply that
>>> FileOutputStream might be thread-safe, but you can’t really know that
>>> without looking at the source. The problem is that FileChannel.write()
>>> takes a ByteBuffer whereas FileOutputStream.write() accepts a byte array.
>>> To be thread safe it would have to safely copy the byte array into the byte
>>> buffer to pass to the FileChannel. But FileOutputStream doesn’t use the
>>> FileChannel at all in Java 7. It calls a native method that doesn’t specify
>>> whether it is thread-safe or not, so simply removing the synchronization
>>> isn’t guaranteed to work properly.
>>>
>>> OTOH, RandomAccessFile doesn’t say that it is thread-safe either and we
>>> are not synchronizing writes to it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:37 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> I looked at 1.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.1.10 and saw nothing special other than a
>>> lack of a synchronized keyword on the equivalent append method. Perhaps he
>>> figured out a simpler way to emulate locking?
>>>
>>> I've been working with async/non-blocking streaming APIs for long enough
>>> now that I can't even remember the last time I had to write an actual lock.
>>>
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 22:02, Apache  wrote:
>>>
 Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT

 Ralph

 On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:

 Sorry what 1.2 do you mean?

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:06, Apache  wrote:

 In 1.2?  That may work for a FileOutputStream but it isn’t guaranteed
 to work for others.

 Ralph

 On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference
 now between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't
 synchronized on the append method.

 On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file
> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of
> OutputStream?
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache 
> wrote:
>
>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing
>> list. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0
>> RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>
>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for
>> my two MacBooks are at https://docs.google.com/spread
>> sheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?u
>> sp=sharing.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the
>> only way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging
>> frameworks.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's
>> rather interesting.
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.
>>> It shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better 
>>> and
>>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-07 Thread Remko Popma

That is all doable but it may be a good idea to test if that is really
where the bottleneck is.
We could try whether we get better numbers if we remove the current
synchronization (ignoring any scrambled output, just for testing purposes).


On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Apache  wrote:

> In looking at FileManager and OutputStreamManager it does have a
> ByteBuffer but it requires synchronization. I am thinking it might make
> more sense to have a ThreadLocal ByteBuffer and then pass that to
> FileChannel.write() so that no synchronization is required.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> Can't we use the ByteBuffers introduced in the GC-free epic? I was under
> the impression that byte arrays being passed to appenders was created from
> a ByteBuffer at this point, though I haven't really taken a close look at
> this.
>
> On 7 February 2017 at 10:05, Apache  wrote:
>
>> A FileChannel is guaranteed to be thread safe. You can obtain a
>> FileChannel from a FlieOutputStream, so that would seem to imply that
>> FileOutputStream might be thread-safe, but you can’t really know that
>> without looking at the source. The problem is that FileChannel.write()
>> takes a ByteBuffer whereas FileOutputStream.write() accepts a byte array.
>> To be thread safe it would have to safely copy the byte array into the byte
>> buffer to pass to the FileChannel. But FileOutputStream doesn’t use the
>> FileChannel at all in Java 7. It calls a native method that doesn’t specify
>> whether it is thread-safe or not, so simply removing the synchronization
>> isn’t guaranteed to work properly.
>>
>> OTOH, RandomAccessFile doesn’t say that it is thread-safe either and we
>> are not synchronizing writes to it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:37 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I looked at 1.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.1.10 and saw nothing special other than a
>> lack of a synchronized keyword on the equivalent append method. Perhaps he
>> figured out a simpler way to emulate locking?
>>
>> I've been working with async/non-blocking streaming APIs for long enough
>> now that I can't even remember the last time I had to write an actual lock.
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 22:02, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry what 1.2 do you mean?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:06, Apache  wrote:
>>>
>>> In 1.2?  That may work for a FileOutputStream but it isn’t guaranteed to
>>> work for others.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference
>>> now between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't
>>> synchronized on the append method.
>>>
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
 Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file
 appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of
 OutputStream?

 On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  wrote:

> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing
> list. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0
> RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>
> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for
> my two MacBooks are at https://docs.google.com/spread
> sheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
> .
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the
> only way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging
> frameworks.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's
> rather interesting.
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache 
> wrote:
>
>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.
>> It shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and
>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender
>> with 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size
>> (which appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd 
>> be
>> cool to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j 
>> and
>> logback.
>>
>> On 5 February

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-07 Thread Apache

In looking at FileManager and OutputStreamManager it does have a ByteBuffer but 
it requires synchronization. I am thinking it might make more sense to have a 
ThreadLocal ByteBuffer and then pass that to FileChannel.write() so that no 
synchronization is required.

Ralph

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:36 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> Can't we use the ByteBuffers introduced in the GC-free epic? I was under the 
> impression that byte arrays being passed to appenders was created from a 
> ByteBuffer at this point, though I haven't really taken a close look at this.
> 
> On 7 February 2017 at 10:05, Apache  > wrote:
> A FileChannel is guaranteed to be thread safe. You can obtain a FileChannel 
> from a FlieOutputStream, so that would seem to imply that FileOutputStream 
> might be thread-safe, but you can’t really know that without looking at the 
> source. The problem is that FileChannel.write() takes a ByteBuffer whereas 
> FileOutputStream.write() accepts a byte array. To be thread safe it would 
> have to safely copy the byte array into the byte buffer to pass to the 
> FileChannel. But FileOutputStream doesn’t use the FileChannel at all in Java 
> 7. It calls a native method that doesn’t specify whether it is thread-safe or 
> not, so simply removing the synchronization isn’t guaranteed to work 
> properly. 
> 
> OTOH, RandomAccessFile doesn’t say that it is thread-safe either and we are 
> not synchronizing writes to it.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:37 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I looked at 1.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.1.10 and saw nothing special other than a 
>> lack of a synchronized keyword on the equivalent append method. Perhaps he 
>> figured out a simpler way to emulate locking?
>> 
>> I've been working with async/non-blocking streaming APIs for long enough now 
>> that I can't even remember the last time I had to write an actual lock.
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 22:02, Apache > > wrote:
>> Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Remko Popma >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sorry what 1.2 do you mean? 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:06, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> 
 In 1.2?  That may work for a FileOutputStream but it isn’t guaranteed to 
 work for others.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference 
> now between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't 
> synchronized on the append method.
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
> OutputStream?
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  > wrote:
> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing 
> list. 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>  
> 
> 
> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my 
> two MacBooks are at 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> .
>  
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only 
>> way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather 
>>> interesting.
>>> 
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It 
>>> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 
>>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-07 Thread Matt Sicker

Can't we use the ByteBuffers introduced in the GC-free epic? I was under
the impression that byte arrays being passed to appenders was created from
a ByteBuffer at this point, though I haven't really taken a close look at
this.

On 7 February 2017 at 10:05, Apache  wrote:

> A FileChannel is guaranteed to be thread safe. You can obtain a
> FileChannel from a FlieOutputStream, so that would seem to imply that
> FileOutputStream might be thread-safe, but you can’t really know that
> without looking at the source. The problem is that FileChannel.write()
> takes a ByteBuffer whereas FileOutputStream.write() accepts a byte array.
> To be thread safe it would have to safely copy the byte array into the byte
> buffer to pass to the FileChannel. But FileOutputStream doesn’t use the
> FileChannel at all in Java 7. It calls a native method that doesn’t specify
> whether it is thread-safe or not, so simply removing the synchronization
> isn’t guaranteed to work properly.
>
> OTOH, RandomAccessFile doesn’t say that it is thread-safe either and we
> are not synchronizing writes to it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:37 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I looked at 1.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.1.10 and saw nothing special other than a
> lack of a synchronized keyword on the equivalent append method. Perhaps he
> figured out a simpler way to emulate locking?
>
> I've been working with async/non-blocking streaming APIs for long enough
> now that I can't even remember the last time I had to write an actual lock.
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 22:02, Apache  wrote:
>
>> Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>
>> Sorry what 1.2 do you mean?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:06, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> In 1.2?  That may work for a FileOutputStream but it isn’t guaranteed to
>> work for others.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference
>> now between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't
>> synchronized on the append method.
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file
>>> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of
>>> OutputStream?
>>>
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  wrote:
>>>
 Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing
 list. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0
 RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0

 I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my
 two MacBooks are at https://docs.google.com/spread
 sheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
 .

 Ralph

 On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache  wrote:

 Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the
 only way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging
 frameworks.

 Ralph

 On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather
 interesting.

 On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  wrote:

> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It
> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and
> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with
> 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which
> appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool
> to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and
> logback.
>
> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache 
> wrote:
>
>> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf to
>> compare your results to Ceki’s.  You also should capture the cpubenchmark
>> speed of your processor and get the speed of your hard drive. I used
>> Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing my results in a Google
>> spreadsheet. I will post the like once I have it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory 
>> wrote:
>>
>> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on
>> Windows again.
>>
>> Let me know what args/command line...
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-07 Thread Apache

A FileChannel is guaranteed to be thread safe. You can obtain a FileChannel 
from a FlieOutputStream, so that would seem to imply that FileOutputStream 
might be thread-safe, but you can’t really know that without looking at the 
source. The problem is that FileChannel.write() takes a ByteBuffer whereas 
FileOutputStream.write() accepts a byte array. To be thread safe it would have 
to safely copy the byte array into the byte buffer to pass to the FileChannel. 
But FileOutputStream doesn’t use the FileChannel at all in Java 7. It calls a 
native method that doesn’t specify whether it is thread-safe or not, so simply 
removing the synchronization isn’t guaranteed to work properly. 

OTOH, RandomAccessFile doesn’t say that it is thread-safe either and we are not 
synchronizing writes to it.

Ralph

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:37 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I looked at 1.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.1.10 and saw nothing special other than a lack 
> of a synchronized keyword on the equivalent append method. Perhaps he figured 
> out a simpler way to emulate locking?
> 
> I've been working with async/non-blocking streaming APIs for long enough now 
> that I can't even remember the last time I had to write an actual lock.
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 22:02, Apache  > wrote:
> Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Remko Popma > > wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry what 1.2 do you mean? 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:06, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>>> In 1.2?  That may work for a FileOutputStream but it isn’t guaranteed to 
>>> work for others.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker > wrote:

 I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now 
 between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized 
 on the append method.

 On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
 appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
 OutputStream?

 On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache > wrote:
 Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing 
 list. 
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0

 I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my 
 two MacBooks are at 
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing

 .

 Ralph

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache  > wrote:
> 
> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only 
> way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather 
>> interesting.
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache > > wrote:
>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It 
>> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 
>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 
>>> 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size 
>>> (which appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. 
>>> It'd be cool to see how these compose with async logging enabled in 
>>> both log4j and logback.
>>> 
>>> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf 
>>>  to compare your results to 
>>> Ceki’s.  You also should capture the cpubenchmark speed of your 
>>> processor and get the speed of your hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed 
>>> test on my Mac. I am

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-07 Thread Matt Sicker

I looked at 1.2-SNAPSHOT and 1.1.10 and saw nothing special other than a
lack of a synchronized keyword on the equivalent append method. Perhaps he
figured out a simpler way to emulate locking?

I've been working with async/non-blocking streaming APIs for long enough
now that I can't even remember the last time I had to write an actual lock.

On 6 February 2017 at 22:02, Apache  wrote:

> Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>
> Sorry what 1.2 do you mean?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:06, Apache  wrote:
>
> In 1.2?  That may work for a FileOutputStream but it isn’t guaranteed to
> work for others.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now
> between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized
> on the append method.
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file
>> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of
>> OutputStream?
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing
>>> list. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0
>>> RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>>
>>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my
>>> two MacBooks are at https://docs.google.com/spread
>>> sheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache  wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only
>>> way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  wrote:
>>>
 Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It
 shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and
 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.

 Ralph

 On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with
 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which
 appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool
 to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and
 logback.

 On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache  wrote:

> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf to
> compare your results to Ceki’s.  You also should capture the cpubenchmark
> speed of your processor and get the speed of your hard drive. I used
> Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing my results in a Google
> spreadsheet. I will post the like once I have it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory 
> wrote:
>
> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on
> Windows again.
>
> Let me know what args/command line...
>
> Gary
>
> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  wrote:
>
>> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive
>> category. With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>>
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples
>>   Score   Error  Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
>> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20
>> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20
>> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20
>> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20
>> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
>>
>> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything
>> directly on bare metal any more.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the
>> FileAppender. See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html and
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qny
>> ye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0. I suspect we have a
>> few optimizations we can make.

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-06 Thread Apache

Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT

Ralph

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Remko Popma  wrote:
> 
> Sorry what 1.2 do you mean? 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:06, Apache  > wrote:
> 
>> In 1.2?  That may work for a FileOutputStream but it isn’t guaranteed to 
>> work for others.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now 
>>> between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized 
>>> on the append method.
>>> 
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
>>> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
>>> OutputStream?
>>> 
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing list. 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my two 
>>> MacBooks are at 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
>>>  
>>> .
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache > wrote:
 
 Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only 
 way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> 
> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather 
> interesting.
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  > wrote:
> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It 
> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 
> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 
>> 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size 
>> (which appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd 
>> be cool to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both 
>> log4j and logback.
>> 
>> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache > > wrote:
>> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf 
>>  to compare your results to 
>> Ceki’s.  You also should capture the cpubenchmark speed of your 
>> processor and get the speed of your hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed 
>> test on my Mac. I am capturing my results in a Google spreadsheet. I 
>> will post the like once I have it.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows 
>>> again.
>>> 
>>> Let me know what args/command line...
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache" >> > wrote:
>>> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive 
>>> category. With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>>> 
>>> Benchmark Mode  Samples
>>> Score   Error  Units
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
>>> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   
>>> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20  
>>> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20  
>>> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   
>>> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
>>> 
>>> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything 
>>> directly on bare

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-06 Thread Remko Popma

Sorry what 1.2 do you mean? 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 11:06, Apache  wrote:
> 
> In 1.2?  That may work for a FileOutputStream but it isn’t guaranteed to work 
> for others.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now 
>> between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized 
>> on the append method.
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
>>> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
>>> OutputStream?
>>> 
 On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  wrote:
 Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing 
 list. 
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
 
 I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my 
 two MacBooks are at 
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing.
  
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache  wrote:
> 
> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only 
> way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> 
>> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather 
>> interesting.
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  wrote:
>>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It 
>>> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 
>>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
 
 I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 
 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size 
 (which appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. 
 It'd be cool to see how these compose with async logging enabled in 
 both log4j and logback.
 
 On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache  wrote:
> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf to 
> compare your results to Ceki’s.  You also should capture the 
> cpubenchmark speed of your processor and get the speed of your hard 
> drive. I used Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing my 
> results in a Google spreadsheet. I will post the like once I have it.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on 
>> Windows again.
>> 
>> Let me know what args/command line...
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  
>>> wrote:
>>> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive 
>>> category. With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>>> 
>>> Benchmark Mode  Samples 
>>>Score   Error  Units
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
>>> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   
>>> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20  
>>> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20  
>>> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   
>>> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
>>> 
>>> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything 
>>> directly on bare metal any more.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache  
 wrote:
 
 Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the 
 FileAppender. See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html and 
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0.
  I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make.
 
 Ralph
>>> 
> 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Matt Sicker

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-06 Thread Apache

In 1.2?  That may work for a FileOutputStream but it isn’t guaranteed to work 
for others.

Ralph

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now 
> between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized on 
> the append method.
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file 
> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of 
> OutputStream?
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  > wrote:
> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing list. 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>  
> 
> 
> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my two 
> MacBooks are at 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> .
>  
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only way 
>> to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather 
>>> interesting.
>>> 
>>> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It 
>>> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 
>>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 
 I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 
 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which 
 appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool 
 to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and 
 logback.
 
 On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache > wrote:
 You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf 
  to compare your results to Ceki’s.  
 You also should capture the cpubenchmark speed of your processor and get 
 the speed of your hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am 
 capturing my results in a Google spreadsheet. I will post the like once I 
 have it.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory  > wrote:
> 
> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows 
> again.
> 
> Let me know what args/command line...
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  > wrote:
> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive category. 
> With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
> 
> Benchmark Mode  Samples
> Score   Error  Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   
> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20  
> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20  
> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   
> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
> 
> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything 
> directly on bare metal any more.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender. 
>> See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html  
>> and 
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>  
>>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-06 Thread Matt Sicker

I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place, but a major difference now
between Logback's appenders and Log4j's is that Logback isn't synchronized
on the append method.

On 6 February 2017 at 18:18, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file
> appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of
> OutputStream?
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  wrote:
>
>> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing
>> list. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0
>> RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>
>> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my
>> two MacBooks are at https://docs.google.com/spread
>> sheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only
>> way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather
>> interesting.
>>
>> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It
>>> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and
>>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with
>>> 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which
>>> appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool
>>> to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and
>>> logback.
>>>
>>> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache  wrote:
>>>
 You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf to
 compare your results to Ceki’s.  You also should capture the cpubenchmark
 speed of your processor and get the speed of your hard drive. I used
 Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing my results in a Google
 spreadsheet. I will post the like once I have it.

 Ralph

 On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory 
 wrote:

 If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows
 again.

 Let me know what args/command line...

 Gary

 On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  wrote:

> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive
> category. With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>
> Benchmark Mode  Samples
> Score   Error  Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20
> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20
> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20
> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20
> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
>
> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything
> directly on bare metal any more.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the
> FileAppender. See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html and
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qny
> ye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0. I suspect we have a
> few optimizations we can make.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker 
>



-- 
Matt Sicker

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-06 Thread Matt Sicker

Is this something we can improve performance on by implementing a file
appender based on FileChannel or AsynchronousFileChannel instead of
OutputStream?

On 6 February 2017 at 17:50, Apache  wrote:

> Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing
> list. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/
> 1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>
> I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my
> two MacBooks are at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/
> 1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only
> way to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather
> interesting.
>
> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  wrote:
>
>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It
>> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and
>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with
>> 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which
>> appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool
>> to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and
>> logback.
>>
>> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf to
>>> compare your results to Ceki’s.  You also should capture the cpubenchmark
>>> speed of your processor and get the speed of your hard drive. I used
>>> Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing my results in a Google
>>> spreadsheet. I will post the like once I have it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory  wrote:
>>>
>>> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows
>>> again.
>>>
>>> Let me know what args/command line...
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  wrote:
>>>
 I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive
 category. With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get

 Benchmark Mode  Samples
 Score   Error  Units
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20
 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20
 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20
 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20
 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s

 I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything
 directly on bare metal any more.

 Ralph

 On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache  wrote:

 Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the
 FileAppender. See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html and
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qny
 ye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0. I suspect we have a few
 optimizations we can make.

 Ralph



>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker 
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker 
>
>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-06 Thread Apache

Ceki has updated his numbers to include those reported on the mailing list. 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
 


I haven’t run the tests with Logback 1.2-SNAPSHOT but my numbers for my two 
MacBooks are at 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L67IhmUVvyLBWtC6iq0TMj-j0vrbKsUKWuZV0Nlqisk/edit?usp=sharing
 
.
 

Ralph

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Apache  wrote:
> 
> Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only way 
> to provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather 
>> interesting.
>> 
>> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache > > wrote:
>> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It shows 
>> Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 
>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 256k 
>>> buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which 
>>> appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool 
>>> to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and 
>>> logback.
>>> 
>>> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf 
>>>  to compare your results to Ceki’s.  
>>> You also should capture the cpubenchmark speed of your processor and get 
>>> the speed of your hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am 
>>> capturing my results in a Google spreadsheet. I will post the like once I 
>>> have it.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory > wrote:
 
 If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows 
 again.
 
 Let me know what args/command line...
 
 Gary
 
 On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache" > wrote:
 I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive category. 
 With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
 
 Benchmark Mode  Samples
 Score   Error  Units
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   
 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20  
 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20  
 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
 o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   
 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
 
 I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything 
 directly on bare metal any more.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache  > wrote:
> 
> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender. 
> See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html  
> and 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>  
> .
>  I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make.
> 
> Ralph
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Matt Sicker >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matt Sicker >
>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-06 Thread Apache

Yes, that is still the standard approach most people use and is the only way to 
provide a head-to-head comparison against the logging frameworks.

Ralph

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather 
> interesting.
> 
> On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  > wrote:
> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It shows 
> Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 1.2-SNAPSHOT 
> is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 256k 
>> buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which 
>> appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool to 
>> see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and logback.
>> 
>> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache > > wrote:
>> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf 
>>  to compare your results to Ceki’s.  
>> You also should capture the cpubenchmark speed of your processor and get the 
>> speed of your hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am 
>> capturing my results in a Google spreadsheet. I will post the like once I 
>> have it.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows 
>>> again.
>>> 
>>> Let me know what args/command line...
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache" >> > wrote:
>>> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive category. 
>>> With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>>> 
>>> Benchmark Mode  Samples
>>> Score   Error  Units
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
>>> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   
>>> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20  
>>> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20  
>>> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   
>>> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
>>> 
>>> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything directly 
>>> on bare metal any more.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache > wrote:
 
 Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender. 
 See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html  
 and 
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
  
 .
  I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make.
 
 Ralph
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matt Sicker >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker >

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-06 Thread Matt Sicker

This is all in a synchronous appender, right? Either way, that's rather
interesting.

On 6 February 2017 at 07:54, Apache  wrote:

> Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It
> shows Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and
> 1.2-SNAPSHOT is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with
> 256k buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which
> appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool
> to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and
> logback.
>
> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache  wrote:
>
>> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf to
>> compare your results to Ceki’s.  You also should capture the cpubenchmark
>> speed of your processor and get the speed of your hard drive. I used
>> Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing my results in a Google
>> spreadsheet. I will post the like once I have it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory  wrote:
>>
>> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows
>> again.
>>
>> Let me know what args/command line...
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  wrote:
>>
>>> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive
>>> category. With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>>>
>>> Benchmark Mode  Samples
>>> Score   Error  Units
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
>>> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20
>>> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20
>>> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20
>>> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
>>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20
>>> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
>>>
>>> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything
>>> directly on bare metal any more.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache  wrote:
>>>
>>> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender.
>>> See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html and https://docs.google
>>> .com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D
>>> 91m0/edit#gid=0. I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker 
>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-06 Thread Apache

Someone posted numbers on the Logback user’s list that match mine.  It shows 
Logback 1.1.9 was pretty terrible, 1.1.10 is somewhat better and 1.2-SNAPSHOT 
is on par or slightly better than Log4j 2.

Ralph

> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 256k 
> buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which appears 
> to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool to see how 
> these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and logback.
> 
> On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache  > wrote:
> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf 
>  to compare your results to Ceki’s.  
> You also should capture the cpubenchmark speed of your processor and get the 
> speed of your hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am 
> capturing my results in a Google spreadsheet. I will post the like once I 
> have it.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory > > wrote:
>> 
>> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows 
>> again.
>> 
>> Let me know what args/command line...
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache" > > wrote:
>> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive category. 
>> With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>> 
>> Benchmark Mode  SamplesScore 
>>   Error  Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   2098187.673 
>> ±  4935.712  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   842374.496 
>> ±  6762.712  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20  1853062.583 
>> ± 67032.225  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20  2036011.226 
>> ± 53208.281  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   999667.438 
>> ± 12074.003  ops/s
>> 
>> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything directly 
>> on bare metal any more.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender. 
>>> See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html  and 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>>  
>>> .
>>>  I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker >

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-05 Thread Matt Sicker

I think we need some comparisons on the log4j side: file appender with 256k
buffer size, random access file appender with 256k buffer size (which
appears to be the default), and memory mapped file appender. It'd be cool
to see how these compose with async logging enabled in both log4j and
logback.

On 5 February 2017 at 16:06, Apache  wrote:

> You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf to
> compare your results to Ceki’s.  You also should capture the cpubenchmark
> speed of your processor and get the speed of your hard drive. I used
> Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing my results in a Google
> spreadsheet. I will post the like once I have it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory  wrote:
>
> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows
> again.
>
> Let me know what args/command line...
>
> Gary
>
> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  wrote:
>
>> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive category.
>> With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>>
>> Benchmark Mode  Samples
>> Score   Error  Units
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
>> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20
>> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20
>> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20
>> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
>> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20
>> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
>>
>> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything
>> directly on bare metal any more.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender.
>> See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html and https://docs.google
>> .com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D
>> 91m0/edit#gid=0. I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-05 Thread Apache

You should run the code at https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf 
 to compare your results to Ceki’s.  You 
also should capture the cpubenchmark speed of your processor and get the speed 
of your hard drive. I used Blackmagic speed test on my Mac. I am capturing my 
results in a Google spreadsheet. I will post the like once I have it.

Ralph

> On Feb 5, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Gary Gregory  wrote:
> 
> If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows again.
> 
> Let me know what args/command line...
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  > wrote:
> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive category. 
> With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
> 
> Benchmark Mode  SamplesScore  
>  Error  Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   2098187.673 
> ±  4935.712  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   842374.496 
> ±  6762.712  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20  1853062.583 
> ± 67032.225  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20  2036011.226 
> ± 53208.281  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   999667.438 
> ± 12074.003  ops/s
> 
> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything directly 
> on bare metal any more.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender. See 
>> https://logback.qos.ch/news.html  and 
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>>  
>> .
>>  I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make.
>> 
>> Ralph
>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-05 Thread Gary Gregory

If you want, I can run tests on Windows once the build works on Windows
again.

Let me know what args/command line...

Gary

On Feb 5, 2017 11:58 AM, "Apache"  wrote:

> I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive category.
> With Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get
>
> Benchmark Mode  Samples
> Score   Error  Units
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   20
> 98187.673 ±  4935.712  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20
> 842374.496 ±  6762.712  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20
> 1853062.583 ± 67032.225  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20
> 2036011.226 ± 53208.281  ops/s
> o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20
> 999667.438 ± 12074.003  ops/s
>
> I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything
> directly on bare metal any more.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache  wrote:
>
> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender.
> See https://logback.qos.ch/news.html and https://docs.
> google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98ca
> tNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0. I suspect we have a few optimizations we can
> make.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>

Re: Logback performance improvements

2017-02-05 Thread Apache

I guess my MacBook Pro must fit in the Slow CPU/Fast Hard drive category. With 
Logback 1.10 and -t 4  now get

Benchmark Mode  SamplesScore
   Error  Units
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.julFilethrpt   2098187.673 ±  
4935.712  ops/s
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j1File thrpt   20   842374.496 ±  
6762.712  ops/s
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2File thrpt   20  1853062.583 ± 
67032.225  ops/s
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.log4j2RAF  thrpt   20  2036011.226 ± 
53208.281  ops/s
o.a.l.l.p.j.FileAppenderBenchmark.logbackFilethrpt   20   999667.438 ± 
12074.003  ops/s

I’ll have to try this on one my VMs at work. We don’t run anything directly on 
bare metal any more.

Ralph

> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Apache  wrote:
> 
> Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender. See 
> https://logback.qos.ch/news.html  and 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
>  
> .
>  I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make.
> 
> Ralph

Logback performance improvements

2017-02-05 Thread Apache

Ceki finally fixed some of the performance problems in the FileAppender. See 
https://logback.qos.ch/news.html  and 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cpb5D7qnyye4W0RTlHUnXedYK98catNZytYIu5D91m0/edit#gid=0
 
.
 I suspect we have a few optimizations we can make.

Ralph

54 matches

Mail list logo