Carter, Thanks for following up. I knew I had to be missing something. I don’t know why I didn’t see the system property being set.
Ralph > On Aug 20, 2021, at 5:19 PM, Carter Kozak <cko...@ckozak.net> wrote: > > The benchmark itself sets the system property to opt into > AsyncLoggerContextSelector: > https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf/blob/5f6b10693959b6ecf1b82abddb052e89fe063e89/src/main/java/ch/qos/logback/perf/AsyncWithFileAppenderBenchmark.java#L61 > > <https://github.com/ceki/logback-perf/blob/5f6b10693959b6ecf1b82abddb052e89fe063e89/src/main/java/ch/qos/logback/perf/AsyncWithFileAppenderBenchmark.java#L61> > > There’s some discussion on > https://gist.github.com/carterkozak/891ea382a12782b772571059d62d501a > <https://gist.github.com/carterkozak/891ea382a12782b772571059d62d501a> > > -ck > >> On Aug 20, 2021, at 8:04 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >> 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 Benchmarks were using an unpublished version of logback that works 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. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
