I have built some binaries for people to play with: http://people.apache.org/~stephenc/
MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-jul.tar.gz) = dd40afbfa64ab53f614ede19385e4a48 MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-jul.zip) = 731fe7136e96e2027d145d993d917f20 MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-log4j.tar.gz) = 63fead6accb60ca52c8a299c39d172f5 MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-log4j.zip) = 64982b6395a80bb6f2d27020c9f439be MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-log4j2.tar.gz) = cc38e6f2110d9e76f6fc9feb29c48500 MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-log4j2.zip) = 77eda0a4bbb6f82cfdff8e8afb408dd5 MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-logback.tar.gz) = b51215f3e1c5589772b4d65c68f28654 MD5 (apache-maven-3.1.0-pre-logback.zip) = 6af89e67b1dca4699ef0ce57c3db6a5f They should all behave roughly similarly... though the log4j 1.2 version will probably output [WARN] and not [WARNING] On 12 December 2012 10:40, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com > wrote: > I am working on getting some branches for different options. > > I think I have the logging/slf4j-jul branch done... > > I think my logging/slf4j-log4j2 branch is correct > > I am fairly certain my logging/slf4j-logback branch is correct > > My logging/slf4j-log4j (i.e. 1.2) branch needs some tweaks > > If somebody can run the integration tests on those branches and report the > results here that would be great. > > > On 12 December 2012 08:48, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Can we get a set of baseline git hashes for any versions of maven that we >> are comparing. I might see if I can pull logback out of the latest RC and >> put log4j2 and some other impls in its place so we can get some real apples >> for apples comparisons going >> >> >> On 12 December 2012 08:35, Kristian Rosenvold < >> kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >
