Re: Logback performance improvements

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

Re: Logback performance improvements

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

Re: Logback performance improvements

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

Re: Logback performance improvements

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

Re: Java 9

Can you point me at some info on that? What massive changes are needed? Remko Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 7, 2017, at 1:36, Apache wrote: > > I fixed the only problem I could find last week. However, we still have more > to do as we really need to support the

Re: Logback performance improvements

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

Re: Logback performance improvements

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

Re: Java 9

I fixed the only problem I could find last week. However, we still have more to do as we really need to support the StackWalker API and the “right” way to do it would require massive changes. I also need to benchmark the cost of invoking the StackWalker API to return the method’s caller to see

Re: Logback performance improvements

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

Re: Java 9

I remember Ralph mentioned that he tested it out and found that it worked pretty well. See issue: On 6 February 2017 at 09:56, Remko Popma wrote: > I haven't had a chance to look at this yet, but is the new stack walking

Java 9

I haven't had a chance to look at this yet, but is the new stack walking API in Java 9 of any use for us? I believe applications/libraries like Log4j were supposed to be the drivers behind this feature, but last time I checked they were not going to cater for our use case (inspect the stack from

Re: Logback performance improvements

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

Re: Logback performance improvements

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