Hello, Looking at the log4j/log42/logback comparison [1], I have noticed a number of inaccuracies.
item 2) The performance of deciding whether to log or not to log when logging is turned on. Logback does not walk the hierarchy. No, really. It doesn't. item 2) Actually outputting log messages For the log4j2 figures your have the "immediateFlush" property set to false. For the logback figures you have "immediateFlush" property set to true. Quoting from [2] and [3] By default, the OutputStream is immediately flushed, unless the immediateFlush property is explicitly set to 'false'. Setting the immediateFlush property to false can significantly improve logging throughput. The default value for immediateFlush is 'true'. Immediate flushing of the output stream ensures that logging events are immediately written to disk and will not be lost in case your application exits without properly closing appenders. On the other hand, setting this property to 'false' is likely to quintuple (your mileage may vary) logging throughput. As mentioned previously, if immediateFlush is set to 'false' and if appenders are not closed properly when your application exits, then logging events not yet written to disk may be lost. === ==== For an honest comparison, both frameworks should use comparable settings. In this particular case, the setting is called "immediateFlush" and carries the same name in both frameworks. [1] http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html [2] http://logback.qos.ch/manual/encoders.html#LayoutWrappingEncoder [3] http://logback.qos.ch/manual/encoders.html#immediateFlush -- Ceki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
