Re: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1
It may be possible (but a bit of a hack) to use async loggers without reflection. It involves compiling your own version of the com.lmax.disruptor.util.Util class where you replace the implementation of the #getUnsafe() method with a simple call to sun.misc.Unsafe.getUnsafe(). Obviously this is not pretty and there are no guarantees that you won#x27;t get a SecurityException or so next... :-( You may be better off using AsyncAppender if you want your blocking I/O to happen in another thread. This may still be beneficial even on a one-core machine. Back to the difference between log4j-1.2 (20% CPU) and log4j-2.0 (40% CPU). Are the test programs identical? I remember you mentioned below that you use MDC with 2.0 but not with 1.2. Can you give a sample of your log4j usage with 1.2 and with 2.0? (Maybe create a JIRA and attach files to it?)
RE: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1
Are the test programs identical? I Yes identical excepting for log4j versions and the required totally different way of configuring. MDC Not coded this yet, wanting to in one version or the other. So no code to post since I haven't gotten to MDC vs NDC (??) yet. Just making sure going to v2 is doable perf-wise. We're short of CPU as it is in this env. :) Thanks for the help and opinions! BTW since you guys know the details well, we just need simple fish tagging, no location stuff, just a few context variables put into the context at event creation time on a thread, then all logs along that flow log 3-5 variables pulled from the context. Is this doable in v1 NDC?? I would just guess a name-value look up by name in the PatternLayout shouldn’t' be much of a perf hit??? curt -Original Message- From: Remko Popma [mailto:rem...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:14 AM To: Log4J-Users List Subject: Re: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1 It may be possible (but a bit of a hack) to use async loggers without reflection. It involves compiling your own version of the com.lmax.disruptor.util.Util class where you replace the implementation of the #getUnsafe() method with a simple call to sun.misc.Unsafe.getUnsafe(). Obviously this is not pretty and there are no guarantees that you won#x27;t get a SecurityException or so next... :-( You may be better off using AsyncAppender if you want your blocking I/O to happen in another thread. This may still be beneficial even on a one-core machine. Back to the difference between log4j-1.2 (20% CPU) and log4j-2.0 (40% CPU). Are the test programs identical? I remember you mentioned below that you use MDC with 2.0 but not with 1.2. Can you give a sample of your log4j usage with 1.2 and with 2.0? (Maybe create a JIRA and attach files to it?)
reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1
Hi guys, I mentioned this observation last week, that my embedded single core
env, the VM also does not support reflection. Is reflection used in the hot
path of logging that might be affecting my testing of V2 using more CPU than v1?
LOGGER.debug(sun.reflect.Reflection is not installed); //
I get this log at VM startup time.
Curt
package org.apache.logging.log4j.core.selector;
public class ClassLoaderContextSelector implements ContextSelector {
private static void setupCallerCheck() {
223 try {
224 final ClassLoader loader = Loader.getClassLoader();
225 final Class clazz = loader.loadClass(sun.reflect.Reflection);
226 final Method[] methods = clazz.getMethods();
227 for (final Method method : methods) {
228 final int modifier = method.getModifiers();
229 if (method.getName().equals(getCallerClass)
Modifier.isStatic(modifier)) {
230 getCallerClass = method;
231 break;
232 }
233 }
234 } catch (final ClassNotFoundException cnfe) {
235 LOGGER.debug(sun.reflect.Reflection is not installed); //
236
-Original Message-
From: Remko Popma [mailto:rem...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:40 AM
To: Log4J Users List; Remko Popma
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j
v1
I quickly reviewed the code and as far as I can tell:
* only the following places in Log4j-2 will create a permanent thread in
addition to your application threads: AsyncLoggers, AsyncAppenders,
o.a.l.l.c.net.SocketServer, o.a.l.l.c.net.UDPSocketServer and
o.a.l.l.c.helpers.*CachedClock
* synchronous logging will not create any threads
* RollingFile creates a short-lived thread for the roll-over, *only* if the old
file needs to be compressed to a .zip or .gz file (the file rename action is
synchronous)
So I'm thinking that the difference in CPU usage is caused by something other
than threads or async logging.
I'd be interested in your answers to my questions below.
Best regards,
Remko
From: Remko Popma rem...@yahoo.com
To: Log4J Users List log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j
v1
I don't think we've ever done any performance testing on the kind of
environment you describe, so this is great feedback, thanks!
First, configuration via XML instead of sys props is on the todo list.
Second, you mentioned you use system property AsyncLoggerContextSelector to
switch on AsyncLoggers.
This is incorrect. The correct key is Log4jContextSelector (and that would
explain why removing this setting made no difference).
Third, if I understand correctly you are essentially logging to a memory-mapped
file. In that case any buffering is just wasting CPU resources, so you should
not use the Fast*File appenders as their buffering cannot be switched off.
(Non-Fast) FileAppenders also use bufferedIO=true by default, but you can
switch this off in config. I would expect this to save some CPU.
On that note, you mentioned CPU usage as your performance measure. Is that the
most important number? Do you have any throughput/latency goals?
Do you have any tools on your platform to see what the CPU is doing? Which
threads are busy for example?
In terms of GC, making all loggers Async has a small benefit in that it re-uses
log event objects.
I am still intrigued by the difference in CPU usage you mention between
log4j-1.2 and 2.0. Is your application code exactly the same? Or do you use the
pattern formats that are now available in log4j-2.0?
Regards,
Remko
From: SMITH, CURTIS cs0...@att.com
To: Log4J Users List log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:55 AM
Subject: RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j
v1
LOL well that's obvious now. :) It was more a case of wishful thinking and
why not give it a try. But it's still odd that my attempts to slim it down
It's still 2x worse than v1. Something else is in play.
curt
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:34 PM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j
v1
I'm curious why you are even trying to use Async anything with a single core
environment (unless it is hyper-threaded). Only 1 thread can be active at a
time so when you switch threads the active thread will just stop. This won't
gain you any additional throughput but you will still incur the additional
overhead of thread management and locking.
Ralph
On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:55 PM, SMITH, CURTIS wrote:
I removed
Re: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1
In your environment I would definitely recommend using BasicContextSelector as
you are unlikely to have need for multiple LoggerContexts.
Ralph
On Jul 29, 2013, at 7:08 AM, SMITH, CURTIS wrote:
Hi guys, I mentioned this observation last week, that my embedded single
core env, the VM also does not support reflection. Is reflection used in the
hot path of logging that might be affecting my testing of V2 using more CPU
than v1?
LOGGER.debug(sun.reflect.Reflection is not installed); //
ï∞ƒ
I get this log at VM startup time.
Curt
package org.apache.logging.log4j.core.selector;
public class ClassLoaderContextSelector implements ContextSelector {
private static void setupCallerCheck() {
223 try {
224 final ClassLoader loader = Loader.getClassLoader();
225 final Class clazz =
loader.loadClass(sun.reflect.Reflection);
226 final Method[] methods = clazz.getMethods();
227 for (final Method method : methods) {
228 final int modifier = method.getModifiers();
229 if (method.getName().equals(getCallerClass)
Modifier.isStatic(modifier)) {
230 getCallerClass = method;
231 break;
232 }
233 }
234 } catch (final ClassNotFoundException cnfe) {
235 LOGGER.debug(sun.reflect.Reflection is not installed); //
ï∞ƒ
236
-Original Message-
From: Remko Popma [mailto:rem...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:40 AM
To: Log4J Users List; Remko Popma
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than
log4j v1
I quickly reviewed the code and as far as I can tell:
* only the following places in Log4j-2 will create a permanent thread in
addition to your application threads:Â AsyncLoggers, AsyncAppenders,
o.a.l.l.c.net.SocketServer, o.a.l.l.c.net.UDPSocketServer andÂ
o.a.l.l.c.helpers.*CachedClock
* synchronous logging will not create any threads
* RollingFile creates a short-lived thread for the roll-over, *only*Â if the
old file needs to be compressed to a .zip or .gz file (the file rename action
is synchronous)
So I'm thinking that the difference in CPU usage is caused by something other
than threads or async logging.
I'd be interested in your answers to my questions below.
Best regards,
Remko
From: Remko Popma rem...@yahoo.com
To: Log4J Users List log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than
log4j v1
I don't think we've ever done any performance testing on the kind of
environment you describe, so this is great feedback, thanks!
First, configuration via XML instead of sys props is on the todo list.
Second, you mentioned you use system property AsyncLoggerContextSelector to
switch on AsyncLoggers.
This is incorrect. The correct key is Log4jContextSelector (and that would
explain why removing this setting made no difference).
Third, if I understand correctly you are essentially logging to a
memory-mapped file. In that case any buffering is just wasting CPU resources,
so you should not use the Fast*File appenders as their buffering cannot be
switched off. (Non-Fast) FileAppenders also use bufferedIO=true by default,
but you can switch this off in config. I would expect this to save some CPU.
On that note, you mentioned CPU usage as your performance measure. Is that
the most important number? Do you have any throughput/latency goals?
Do you have any tools on your platform to see what the CPU is doing? Which
threads are busy for example?
In terms of GC, making all loggers Async has a small benefit in that it
re-uses log event objects.
I am still intrigued by the difference in CPU usage you mention between
log4j-1.2 and 2.0. Is your application code exactly the same? Or do you use
the pattern formats that are now available in log4j-2.0?
Regards,
Remko
From: SMITH, CURTIS cs0...@att.com
To: Log4J Users List log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:55 AM
Subject: RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than
log4j v1
LOL well that's obvious now. :) It was more a case of wishful thinking
and why not give it a try.  But it's still odd that my attempts to slim
it down It's still 2x worse than v1. Something else is in play.
curt
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:34 PM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than
log4j v1
I'm curious why you are even trying to use Async anything with a single core
environment (unless it
Re: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1
This probably warrants an enhancement to Log4jContextFactory. I can imagine
other use cases where defaulting to BasicContextSelector also makes sense.
Ralph
On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
In your environment I would definitely recommend using BasicContextSelector
as you are unlikely to have need for multiple LoggerContexts.
Ralph
On Jul 29, 2013, at 7:08 AM, SMITH, CURTIS wrote:
Hi guys, I mentioned this observation last week, that my embedded single
core env, the VM also does not support reflection. Is reflection used in
the hot path of logging that might be affecting my testing of V2 using more
CPU than v1?
LOGGER.debug(sun.reflect.Reflection is not installed); //
ï∞ƒ
I get this log at VM startup time.
Curt
package org.apache.logging.log4j.core.selector;
public class ClassLoaderContextSelector implements ContextSelector {
private static void setupCallerCheck() {
223 try {
224 final ClassLoader loader = Loader.getClassLoader();
225 final Class clazz =
loader.loadClass(sun.reflect.Reflection);
226 final Method[] methods = clazz.getMethods();
227 for (final Method method : methods) {
228 final int modifier = method.getModifiers();
229 if (method.getName().equals(getCallerClass)
Modifier.isStatic(modifier)) {
230 getCallerClass = method;
231 break;
232 }
233 }
234 } catch (final ClassNotFoundException cnfe) {
235 LOGGER.debug(sun.reflect.Reflection is not installed);
// ï∞ƒ
236
-Original Message-
From: Remko Popma [mailto:rem...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:40 AM
To: Log4J Users List; Remko Popma
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than
log4j v1
I quickly reviewed the code and as far as I can tell:
* only the following places in Log4j-2 will create a permanent thread in
addition to your application threads:Â AsyncLoggers, AsyncAppenders,
o.a.l.l.c.net.SocketServer, o.a.l.l.c.net.UDPSocketServer andÂ
o.a.l.l.c.helpers.*CachedClock
* synchronous logging will not create any threads
* RollingFile creates a short-lived thread for the roll-over, *only*Â if the
old file needs to be compressed to a .zip or .gz file (the file rename
action is synchronous)
So I'm thinking that the difference in CPU usage is caused by something
other than threads or async logging.
I'd be interested in your answers to my questions below.
Best regards,
Remko
From: Remko Popma rem...@yahoo.com
To: Log4J Users List log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than
log4j v1
I don't think we've ever done any performance testing on the kind of
environment you describe, so this is great feedback, thanks!
First, configuration via XML instead of sys props is on the todo list.
Second, you mentioned you use system property AsyncLoggerContextSelector
to switch on AsyncLoggers.
This is incorrect. The correct key is Log4jContextSelector (and that would
explain why removing this setting made no difference).
Third, if I understand correctly you are essentially logging to a
memory-mapped file. In that case any buffering is just wasting CPU
resources, so you should not use the Fast*File appenders as their buffering
cannot be switched off. (Non-Fast) FileAppenders also use bufferedIO=true by
default, but you can switch this off in config. I would expect this to save
some CPU.
On that note, you mentioned CPU usage as your performance measure. Is that
the most important number? Do you have any throughput/latency goals?
Do you have any tools on your platform to see what the CPU is doing? Which
threads are busy for example?
In terms of GC, making all loggers Async has a small benefit in that it
re-uses log event objects.
I am still intrigued by the difference in CPU usage you mention between
log4j-1.2 and 2.0. Is your application code exactly the same? Or do you use
the pattern formats that are now available in log4j-2.0?
Regards,
Remko
From: SMITH, CURTIS cs0...@att.com
To: Log4J Users List log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:55 AM
Subject: RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than
log4j v1
LOL well that's obvious now. :) It was more a case of wishful thinking
and why not give it a try.  But it's still odd that my attempts to
slim it down It's still 2x worse than v1. Something else is in play.
curt
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013
RE: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1
.run(Util.java:102)
at com.lmax.disruptor.util.Util$1.run(Util.java:99)
at
java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(AccessController.java:255)
... 40 more
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 11:05 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50%
worse than log4j v1
This probably warrants an enhancement to Log4jContextFactory. I can imagine
other use cases where defaulting to BasicContextSelector also makes sense.
Ralph
On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
In your environment I would definitely recommend using BasicContextSelector
as you are unlikely to have need for multiple LoggerContexts.
Ralph
On Jul 29, 2013, at 7:08 AM, SMITH, CURTIS wrote:
Hi guys, I mentioned this observation last week, that my embedded single
core env, the VM also does not support reflection. Is reflection used in
the hot path of logging that might be affecting my testing of V2 using more
CPU than v1?
LOGGER.debug(sun.reflect.Reflection is not installed); //
ï∞ƒ
I get this log at VM startup time.
Curt
package org.apache.logging.log4j.core.selector;
public class ClassLoaderContextSelector implements ContextSelector {
private static void setupCallerCheck() {
223 try {
224 final ClassLoader loader = Loader.getClassLoader();
225 final Class clazz =
loader.loadClass(sun.reflect.Reflection);
226 final Method[] methods = clazz.getMethods();
227 for (final Method method : methods) {
228 final int modifier = method.getModifiers();
229 if (method.getName().equals(getCallerClass)
Modifier.isStatic(modifier)) {
230 getCallerClass = method;
231 break;
232 }
233 }
234 } catch (final ClassNotFoundException cnfe) {
235 LOGGER.debug(sun.reflect.Reflection is not installed);
// ï∞ƒ
236
-Original Message-
From: Remko Popma [mailto:rem...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:40 AM
To: Log4J Users List; Remko Popma
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than
log4j v1
I quickly reviewed the code and as far as I can tell:
* only the following places in Log4j-2 will create a permanent thread in
addition to your application threads:Â AsyncLoggers, AsyncAppenders,
o.a.l.l.c.net.SocketServer, o.a.l.l.c.net.UDPSocketServer andÂ
o.a.l.l.c.helpers.*CachedClock
* synchronous logging will not create any threads
* RollingFile creates a short-lived thread for the roll-over, *only*Â if the
old file needs to be compressed to a .zip or .gz file (the file rename
action is synchronous)
So I'm thinking that the difference in CPU usage is caused by something
other than threads or async logging.
I'd be interested in your answers to my questions below.
Best regards,
Remko
From: Remko Popma rem...@yahoo.com
To: Log4J Users List log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than
log4j v1
I don't think we've ever done any performance testing on the kind of
environment you describe, so this is great feedback, thanks!
First, configuration via XML instead of sys props is on the todo list.
Second, you mentioned you use system property AsyncLoggerContextSelector
to switch on AsyncLoggers.
This is incorrect. The correct key is Log4jContextSelector (and that would
explain why removing this setting made no difference).
Third, if I understand correctly you are essentially logging to a
memory-mapped file. In that case any buffering is just wasting CPU
resources, so you should not use the Fast*File appenders as their buffering
cannot be switched off. (Non-Fast) FileAppenders also use bufferedIO=true by
default, but you can switch this off in config. I would expect this to save
some CPU.
On that note, you mentioned CPU usage as your performance measure. Is that
the most important number? Do you have any throughput/latency goals?
Do you have any tools on your platform to see what the CPU is doing? Which
threads are busy for example?
In terms of GC, making all loggers Async has a small benefit in that it
re-uses log event objects.
I am still intrigued by the difference in CPU usage you mention between
log4j-1.2 and 2.0. Is your application code exactly the same? Or do you use
the pattern formats that are now available in log4j-2.0?
Regards,
Remko
From: SMITH, CURTIS cs0...@att.com
To: Log4J Users List log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:55 AM
Re: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1
: theUnsafe
at
java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(AccessController.java:259)
at com.lmax.disruptor.util.Util.clinit(Util.java:108)
... 39 more
Caused by: java.lang.NoSuchFieldException: theUnsafe
at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredFieldImpl(Native Method)
at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredField(Class.java:487)
at com.lmax.disruptor.util.Util$1.run(Util.java:102)
at com.lmax.disruptor.util.Util$1.run(Util.java:99)
at
java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(AccessController.java:255)
... 40 more
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 11:05 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: Re: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs
50% worse than log4j v1
This probably warrants an enhancement to Log4jContextFactory. I can imagine
other use cases where defaulting to BasicContextSelector also makes sense.
Ralph
On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
In your environment I would definitely recommend using BasicContextSelector
as you are unlikely to have need for multiple LoggerContexts.
Ralph
On Jul 29, 2013, at 7:08 AM, SMITH, CURTIS wrote:
Hi guys, I mentioned this observation last week, that my embedded single
core env, the VM also does not support reflection. Is reflection used in
the hot path of logging that might be affecting my testing of V2 using more
CPU than v1?
LOGGER.debug(sun.reflect.Reflection is not installed); //
ïâ√ıÆ‚
I get this log at VM startup time.
Curt
package org.apache.logging.log4j.core.selector;
public class ClassLoaderContextSelector implements ContextSelector {
private static void setupCallerCheck() {
223 try {
224 final ClassLoader loader = Loader.getClassLoader();
225 final Class clazz =
loader.loadClass(sun.reflect.Reflection);
226 final Method[] methods = clazz.getMethods();
227 for (final Method method : methods) {
228 final int modifier = method.getModifiers();
229 if (method.getName().equals(getCallerClass)
Modifier.isStatic(modifier)) {
230 getCallerClass = method;
231 break;
232 }
233 }
234 } catch (final ClassNotFoundException cnfe) {
235 LOGGER.debug(sun.reflect.Reflection is not installed);
// ïâ√ıÆ‚
236
-Original Message-
From: Remko Popma [mailto:rem...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:40 AM
To: Log4J Users List; Remko Popma
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than
log4j v1
I quickly reviewed the code and as far as I can tell:
* only the following places in Log4j-2 will create a permanent thread in
addition to your application threads:̭ AsyncLoggers, AsyncAppenders,
o.a.l.l.c.net.SocketServer,̭ o.a.l.l.c.net.UDPSocketServer anḓ
o.a.l.l.c.helpers.*CachedClock
* synchronous logging will not create any threads
* RollingFile creates a short-lived thread for the roll-over, *only*̭ if
the old file needs to be compressed to a .zip or .gz file (the file rename
action is synchronous)
So I'm thinking that the difference in CPU usage is caused by something
other than threads or async logging.
I'd be interested in your answers to my questions below.
Best regards,
Remko
From: Remko Popma rem...@yahoo.com
To: Log4J Users List log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than
log4j v1
I don't think we've ever done any performance testing on the kind of
environment you describe, so this is great feedback, thanks!
First, configuration via XML instead of sys props is on the todo list.
Second, you mentioned you use system property AsyncLoggerContextSelector
to switch on AsyncLoggers.
This is incorrect. The correct key is Log4jContextSelector (and that
would explain why removing this setting made no difference).
Third, if I understand correctly you are essentially logging to a
memory-mapped file. In that case any buffering is just wasting CPU
resources, so you should not use the Fast*File appenders as their buffering
cannot be switched off. (Non-Fast) FileAppenders also use bufferedIO=true
by default, but you can switch this off in config. I would expect this to
save some CPU.
On that note, you mentioned CPU usage as your performance measure. Is that
the most important number? Do you have any throughput/latency goals?
Do you have any tools on your platform to see what the CPU is doing? Which
threads are busy for example?
In terms of GC, making all loggers Async has a small benefit
RE: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1
Hi Ralph, my exception is from the disruptor jar apparently using reflection (below). How is that related to the ClassLoaderContextSelector? I would have guessed that the BasicContextSelector is default??? I'm not setting Log4jContextSelector so it has to be using some context, wouldn't the default be the simplest? Is there benefit from me setting: Log4jContextSelector to org.apache.logging.log4j.core.selector.BasicContextSelector. FWIW I'm having to give up on async logger because my VM doesn't support reflection, and unless I'm not understanding this new architecture, this exception says I'm locked out from testing async logger without reflection. Tnx curt -Original Message- From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:15 PM To: Log4J Users List Subject: Re: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1 Yes. ClassLoaderContextSelector is complicated and probably not at all what you want. it uses the Sun reflection class, which you've noticed is not installed, and runs slower without it. I don't think ClassLoaderContextSelector will be of any benefit to you over BasicContextSelector. On Jul 29, 2013, at 9:05 AM, SMITH, CURTIS wrote: Ralph, Was your comment about BasicContextSelector me and my quest to get V2 to run as well as V1 on my slow single core J2ME env? My test run with AsyncLogger blew up. This J2ME VM does not have reflection. Guessing that disruptor uses reflection to cast methods/objects (bottom). This leaves me with just one more experiment to get V2 to perform as well as V1: RollingFile with bufferedIO=false RE: MDC, no we'll not use any location info, just passing values like username (example) and similar constant values from each transaction initiation into the log. #0 ERRORError occurred while trying to activate bundle! java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError at java.lang.J9VMInternals.initialize(J9VMInternals.java:233) at java.lang.Class.newInstanceImpl(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.newInstance(Class.java:1279) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.startIt(BundleImpl.java:4287) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.simpleStart(BundleImpl.java:1744) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.start0(BundleImpl.java:1642) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.start0(BundleImpl.java:1515) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:1350) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:1060) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.module.boot.BootImpl.start(BootImpl.java:869) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.module.boot.BootImpl.executeBoot(BootImpl.java:386) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.module.boot.BootImpl.processDefaultBoot(BootImpl.java:163) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.module.boot.BootImpl.start(BootImpl.java:93) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.FrameworkLauncher.start(FrameworkLauncher.java:1194) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.FrameworkLauncher.finishLaunch(FrameworkLauncher.java:501) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.FrameworkLauncher.launch(FrameworkLauncher.java:476) at java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject.invokeV(AccessibleObject.java:195) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:242) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.Start.processFrameworkLaunch(Start.java:196) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.Start.main(Start.java:82) Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unexpected error building Logger: null at com.att.dlc.logging.LoggerFactory.buildLogger(LoggerFactory.java:92) at com.att.dlc.logging.LoggerFactory.getLogger(LoggerFactory.java:34) at com.att.dlc.osgi.Activator.clinit(Activator.java:120) at java.lang.J9VMInternals.initializeImpl(Native Method) at java.lang.J9VMInternals.initialize(J9VMInternals.java:211) ... 19 more Caused by: java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException at java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject.invokeV(AccessibleObject.java:197) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:204) at com.att.dlc.logging.LoggerFactory.buildLogger(LoggerFactory.java:89) ... 23 more Caused by: java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError at java.lang.J9VMInternals.initialize(J9VMInternals.java:233) at org.apache.logging.log4j.core.async.AsyncLogger.calculateRingBufferSize(AsyncLogger.java:123) at org.apache.logging.log4j.core.async.AsyncLogger.clinit(AsyncLogger.java:89) at java.lang.J9VMInternals.initializeImpl(Native Method) at java.lang.J9VMInternals.initialize(J9VMInternals.java:211) at org.apache.logging.log4j.core.async.AsyncLoggerContext.newInstance(AsyncLoggerContext.java:51
Re: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1
The exception with the Disruptor wouldn't be. It basically means you cannot use the Async Loggers. The benefit to using the BasicContextSelector is that it is lighter weight and you won't get the warning about the Sun Reflection class being missing.] I have not tested with J2ME so I can't really say what will work and what won't. Ralph On Jul 29, 2013, at 2:40 PM, SMITH, CURTIS wrote: Hi Ralph, my exception is from the disruptor jar apparently using reflection (below). How is that related to the ClassLoaderContextSelector? I would have guessed that the BasicContextSelector is default??? I'm not setting Log4jContextSelector so it has to be using some context, wouldn't the default be the simplest? Is there benefit from me setting: Log4jContextSelector to org.apache.logging.log4j.core.selector.BasicContextSelector. FWIW I'm having to give up on async logger because my VM doesn't support reflection, and unless I'm not understanding this new architecture, this exception says I'm locked out from testing async logger without reflection. Tnx curt -Original Message- From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:15 PM To: Log4J Users List Subject: Re: reflection? RE: async logger on slow single core env performs 50% worse than log4j v1 Yes. ClassLoaderContextSelector is complicated and probably not at all what you want. it uses the Sun reflection class, which you've noticed is not installed, and runs slower without it. I don't think ClassLoaderContextSelector will be of any benefit to you over BasicContextSelector. On Jul 29, 2013, at 9:05 AM, SMITH, CURTIS wrote: Ralph, Was your comment about BasicContextSelector me and my quest to get V2 to run as well as V1 on my slow single core J2ME env? My test run with AsyncLogger blew up. This J2ME VM does not have reflection. Guessing that disruptor uses reflection to cast methods/objects (bottom). This leaves me with just one more experiment to get V2 to perform as well as V1: RollingFile with bufferedIO=false RE: MDC, no we'll not use any location info, just passing values like username (example) and similar constant values from each transaction initiation into the log. #0 ERRORError occurred while trying to activate bundle! java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError at java.lang.J9VMInternals.initialize(J9VMInternals.java:233) at java.lang.Class.newInstanceImpl(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.newInstance(Class.java:1279) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.startIt(BundleImpl.java:4287) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.simpleStart(BundleImpl.java:1744) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.start0(BundleImpl.java:1642) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.start0(BundleImpl.java:1515) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:1350) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:1060) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.module.boot.BootImpl.start(BootImpl.java:869) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.module.boot.BootImpl.executeBoot(BootImpl.java:386) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.module.boot.BootImpl.processDefaultBoot(BootImpl.java:163) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.module.boot.BootImpl.start(BootImpl.java:93) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.FrameworkLauncher.start(FrameworkLauncher.java:1194) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.FrameworkLauncher.finishLaunch(FrameworkLauncher.java:501) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.FrameworkLauncher.launch(FrameworkLauncher.java:476) at java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject.invokeV(AccessibleObject.java:195) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:242) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.Start.processFrameworkLaunch(Start.java:196) at com.prosyst.mbs.impl.framework.Start.main(Start.java:82) Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unexpected error building Logger: null at com.att.dlc.logging.LoggerFactory.buildLogger(LoggerFactory.java:92) at com.att.dlc.logging.LoggerFactory.getLogger(LoggerFactory.java:34) at com.att.dlc.osgi.Activator.clinit(Activator.java:120) at java.lang.J9VMInternals.initializeImpl(Native Method) at java.lang.J9VMInternals.initialize(J9VMInternals.java:211) ... 19 more Caused by: java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException at java.lang.reflect.AccessibleObject.invokeV(AccessibleObject.java:197) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:204) at com.att.dlc.logging.LoggerFactory.buildLogger(LoggerFactory.java:89) ... 23 more Caused by: java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError at java.lang.J9VMInternals.initialize(J9VMInternals.java:233
