I don’t understand. His async configuration for Log4j 2 isn’t async. I didn’t see him set the system property. The log4j2 config file says
<!-- No need to set system property "log4j2.contextSelector" to any value when using <asyncLogger> or <asyncRoot>. --> But he didn’t configure an AsyncLogger or AsyncRoot and there is no Async Appender configured. Ralph > On Aug 20, 2021, at 9:14 AM, Carter Kozak <cko...@ckozak.net> wrote: > > Benchmarks were using an unpublished version of logback that works > differently than the release version I tested against -- continuing the > conversation there, but I'll report back here once dust settles. Rerunning > the benchmarks with a logback snapshot from source shows that async logback > with one logging thread outperforms async log4j2 with 1 logging thread, > however log4j2 performs better with 20 threads. I still need to do a bit of > deeper investigation but will be busy with work for the next several hours. > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, at 12:10, Ralph Goers wrote: >> Feel free to respond to his tweet. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Aug 20, 2021, at 7:15 AM, Carter Kozak <cko...@ckozak.net> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for flagging this! I've responded to the tweet, copying it here as >>> well for posterity: >>> >>> Looking at the logback benchmark it appears that no bytes are being written >>> to target/test-output/logback-async-perf.log. Upon closer inspection the >>> logback asyncappender is in an started=false state, rejecting all input >>> events. >>> https://twitter.com/carter_kozak/status/1428721705464238085?s=20 >>> >>> -ck >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, at 01:13, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Ceki has recently posted a Tweet stating that both log4j 1 and logback >>>> performs better than log4j 2 in async mode: >>>> >>>> https://twitter.com/ceki/status/1428461637917360131?s=19 >>>> https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf >>>> >>>> I don't know much about how async wiring is done under the hood, yet, if >>>> his claim is true, that is pretty concerning. Would anybody mind sparing >>>> some time to investigate if the configuration he employs is tuned good >>>> enough and the results are accurate, please? >>>> >>>> Kind regards. >>>> >> >> >>