Re: Question about async logger wait strategies

[Anthony Maire]

If the sources have not been moved, it's still considered as experimental
on master (and it was still experimental on 3.3.5-rc2 tag)
https://github.com/LMAX-Exchange/disruptor/blob/master/src/main/java/com/lmax/disruptor/LiteBlockingWaitStrategy.java




2016-06-14 7:15 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory :

> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Anthony Maire 
> wrote:
>
> > Basically you want a logging framework to have as little impact as
> possible
> > on the application. That's why the sleeping strategy is a good
> > general-purpose choice : no allocation, no lock for the application
> > threads, and a CPU consumption when "idle" that will stay pretty low on
> > most OS (it roughly consume 2% of a single core on CentOS/RHEL 7 for
> > example).
> >
> > In most use cases, you don't really care that your logging thread take
> 50µs
> > to wake up when it was idle,
> >
> > Maybe you have a very specific usecase where it make sense to use a
> > "hardcore" strategy to make sure data are logged as fast as possible,
> but I
> > personnaly think that the spin strategy is not really usefull outside of
> > benchmarks when used in a logging framework.
> >
> > Concerning the LiteBlocking strategy, it's still considered as
> experimental
> > according to its javadoc :)
> >
>
> I see "normal" docs here:
>
> https://lmax-exchange.github.io/disruptor/docs/com/lmax/disruptor/LiteBlockingWaitStrategy.html
>
> Looks like 3.3.5 is a the RC stage.
>
> Gary
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 2016-06-14 2:14 GMT+02:00 Remko Popma :
> >
> > > Currently there isn't but there's no real reason not to. That reminds
> me
> > > we should add LiteBlocking (a standard Disruptor wait strategy).
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On 2016/06/14, at 5:50, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also, is there a way to specify a custom WaitStrategy, or is that
> > > pointless?
> > > >
> > > >> On 13 June 2016 at 13:24, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> The code has a case for the busy spin strategy, but it's not listed
> on
> > > >> this page:  >.
> > Is
> > > >> this unsupported or should it be added to the docs?
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Matt Sicker 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matt Sicker 
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> 
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
> Spring Batch in Action 
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>

Re: Question about async logger wait strategies

[Gary Gregory]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Anthony Maire 
wrote:

> Basically you want a logging framework to have as little impact as possible
> on the application. That's why the sleeping strategy is a good
> general-purpose choice : no allocation, no lock for the application
> threads, and a CPU consumption when "idle" that will stay pretty low on
> most OS (it roughly consume 2% of a single core on CentOS/RHEL 7 for
> example).
>
> In most use cases, you don't really care that your logging thread take 50µs
> to wake up when it was idle,
>
> Maybe you have a very specific usecase where it make sense to use a
> "hardcore" strategy to make sure data are logged as fast as possible, but I
> personnaly think that the spin strategy is not really usefull outside of
> benchmarks when used in a logging framework.
>
> Concerning the LiteBlocking strategy, it's still considered as experimental
> according to its javadoc :)
>

I see "normal" docs here:
https://lmax-exchange.github.io/disruptor/docs/com/lmax/disruptor/LiteBlockingWaitStrategy.html

Looks like 3.3.5 is a the RC stage.

Gary

>
>
>
> 2016-06-14 2:14 GMT+02:00 Remko Popma :
>
> > Currently there isn't but there's no real reason not to. That reminds me
> > we should add LiteBlocking (a standard Disruptor wait strategy).
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 2016/06/14, at 5:50, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, is there a way to specify a custom WaitStrategy, or is that
> > pointless?
> > >
> > >> On 13 June 2016 at 13:24, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The code has a case for the busy spin strategy, but it's not listed on
> > >> this page: .
> Is
> > >> this unsupported or should it be added to the docs?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Matt Sicker 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matt Sicker 
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
> >
> >
>



-- 
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition

JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
Spring Batch in Action 
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Re: Question about async logger wait strategies

[Anthony Maire]

Basically you want a logging framework to have as little impact as possible
on the application. That's why the sleeping strategy is a good
general-purpose choice : no allocation, no lock for the application
threads, and a CPU consumption when "idle" that will stay pretty low on
most OS (it roughly consume 2% of a single core on CentOS/RHEL 7 for
example).

In most use cases, you don't really care that your logging thread take 50µs
to wake up when it was idle,

Maybe you have a very specific usecase where it make sense to use a
"hardcore" strategy to make sure data are logged as fast as possible, but I
personnaly think that the spin strategy is not really usefull outside of
benchmarks when used in a logging framework.

Concerning the LiteBlocking strategy, it's still considered as experimental
according to its javadoc :)



2016-06-14 2:14 GMT+02:00 Remko Popma :

> Currently there isn't but there's no real reason not to. That reminds me
> we should add LiteBlocking (a standard Disruptor wait strategy).
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 2016/06/14, at 5:50, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> >
> > Also, is there a way to specify a custom WaitStrategy, or is that
> pointless?
> >
> >> On 13 June 2016 at 13:24, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> >>
> >> The code has a case for the busy spin strategy, but it's not listed on
> >> this page: . Is
> >> this unsupported or should it be added to the docs?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matt Sicker 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker 
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org
>
>

Re: Question about async logger wait strategies

[Remko Popma]

Currently there isn't but there's no real reason not to. That reminds me we 
should add LiteBlocking (a standard Disruptor wait strategy). 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2016/06/14, at 5:50, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> Also, is there a way to specify a custom WaitStrategy, or is that pointless?
> 
>> On 13 June 2016 at 13:24, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> 
>> The code has a case for the busy spin strategy, but it's not listed on
>> this page: . Is
>> this unsupported or should it be added to the docs?
>> 
>> --
>> Matt Sicker 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org

Re: Question about async logger wait strategies

[Remko Popma]

The busy-spin wait strategy is not something I want to promote since it 
basically dedicates a full core to the logging background thread. It's there 
mostly for testing and perhaps for hardcore users who are familiar with the 
Disruptor. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2016/06/14, at 3:24, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> The code has a case for the busy spin strategy, but it's not listed on this
> page: . Is this
> unsupported or should it be added to the docs?
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org

Re: Question about async logger wait strategies

[Matt Sicker]

Also, is there a way to specify a custom WaitStrategy, or is that pointless?

On 13 June 2016 at 13:24, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> The code has a case for the busy spin strategy, but it's not listed on
> this page: . Is
> this unsupported or should it be added to the docs?
>
> --
> Matt Sicker 
>



-- 
Matt Sicker 

Question about async logger wait strategies

[Matt Sicker]

The code has a case for the busy spin strategy, but it's not listed on this
page: . Is this
unsupported or should it be added to the docs?

-- 
Matt Sicker