Yeah, measuring performance on modern cpu's is totally borked. To get any real measurements one probably needs to to average of 100 non-stop builds or similar, to counter for all the dark magics intel do with temperature-based overclocking.
I think I've seen somewhere that it's possible to disable all the cpu-voodo in the bios. But what a pain to reboot to change those settings ! Or dig out the old Pentium4 from the closet. Kristian 2012/12/12 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>: > I checked out Maven and used its build as a comparison. First, I ran the > log4j 2 build and it was taking around 59 seconds. I then changed the > log4j2.xml to remove the colors. I then got an average time for Log4j 2 of > 54.76s and for Logback I get an average of 55.225s. I consider these > differences to be meaningless. > > For reference, the log4j2.xml I used is attached. > > Ralph > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 11:19 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > >> Well I am not going to tar and feather log4j2 based on one set of runs on >> my machine. I would like somebody else to repeat and confirm first as there >> could have been some background OS update or other process stealing CPU >> while doing the 3 log4j2 runs. >> >> Also I do not know if I am comparing the same things. Afaik the log back >> branch has the latest fixes in it, while the log4j2 branch is the colorized >> one from a few weeks back and likely has not got the fixes required for the >> issues you identified with the last 3.1.0 RC >> >> We need to compare like with like to make an informed decision... I am just >> putting some numbers down as a starting point >> >> -Stephen >> >> On Wednesday, 12 December 2012, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: >> >>> Finally some interesting numbers, and if (heaven forbid) this decision >>> should be based on >>> technical grounds, this is one of the first significant pieces to come >>> up in this discussion. >>> >>> Since I am quite unfamiliar with logging (I use loose coupling and >>> tests instead ;), I took the opportunity to read >>> http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html Somehow the >>> real-life results don't seem to match up with the advertising blurp on >>> the log4j site. While it hardly surprises me, I was wondering if >>> anyone actually knows why? >>> >>> Kristian >>> >>> >>> >>> 2012/12/12 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com<javascript:;> >>>> : >>>> The consistent times (i.e. repeated runs after discarding the first) are: >>>> >>>> 3.0.4: 1min18sec >>>> logback: 1min13sec >>>> log4j2: 1min34sec >>>> >>>> The second test was building GIT hash >>>> 85dd6e37456d30d2661e10b044efa9036c528023 of jszip-maven-plugin (@ >>> jszip.org) >>>> with the following command line: >>>> >>>> mvn -o -X clean verify -DskipTests -Dinvoker.skip >>>> >>>> [Testing heavy logging] >>>> >>>> 3.0.4: 12.1sec >>>> logback: 12.2sec >>>> log4j2: 12.5sec >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org <javascript:;> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org <javascript:;> >>> >>> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
