I was thinking along similar lines about keeping the old results and adding a
set of results for the later versions. On the other hand I want to avoid
information overload. Let me think about how to present it.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 4, 2017, at 3:24, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> I think we
I think we should keep the current doc pages on the site perhaps under a
different heading. This would be interesting for people who cannot keep up
with the latest.
Gary
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
> Yes but only the JMH benchmarks. Is that acceptable?
>
> The latency tes
Ok. I'll focus on those.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 22:49, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I am most concerned with the two things that have been most impacted - the
> FileAppenderBenchmark and the MarkerFilterBenchmark.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>
I am most concerned with the two things that have been most impacted - the
FileAppenderBenchmark and the MarkerFilterBenchmark.
Ralph
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
> Yes but only the JMH benchmarks. Is that acceptable?
>
> The latency tests and the non-JMH Async Logger te
Yes but only the JMH benchmarks. Is that acceptable?
The latency tests and the non-JMH Async Logger tests are too involved...
One thing to bear in mind, we carefully documented the versions of the
libraries we compared against with our benchmark results. The fact that newer
versions of these l
Remko,
Would it be possible for you to update the performance page for the next
release? I am uncomfortable with some of the results because I know they have
changed since 2.6.
Ralph
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsu
