I'm glad to see that Log4j2 is the new yardstick by which new logging products shall be measured. B-)
Their numbers are impressive though. Shows there's always room for improvement. It won't be easy to match that, especially the zero-garbage logging... (That's one of my goals for binary logging, but it's harder for normal string logging.) Sent from my iPhone > On 2014/08/05, at 10:51, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Or more usefully, they have a whitepaper: > http://www.coralblocks.com/corallog.pdf > > Looks like they've got their own Disruptor-like library they built this out > of. > > >> On 4 August 2014 20:49, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> http://www.coralblocks.com/index.php/2014/06/corallog-vs-log4j-latency-comparison/ >> >> >>> On 4 August 2014 20:39, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Do you have a link? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On 2014/08/05, at 10:28, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Gmail is telling me about some other framework that is "18x less latency >>>> than Log4J 2.0". I'm surprised that the ads are already out like that! >>>> Looks like competition, guys. ;) >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 4 August 2014 20:24, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> It seems that there are some fixes and pending bugs since we started the >>>>> 2.0.1 vote that would justify a 2.0.2. Then we could do 2.1. My feeling >>>>> is that our priority should be to fix 2.0.x as much as possible before >>>>> adding more features for a 2.1. IOW, let's stabilize the current features >>>>> in 2.0.x, then add complexity and possible bugs with new features. >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Are there any outstanding issues we'd like to address in a 2.0.2 >>>>>> release, or should we just start working toward 2.1 now instead? Because >>>>>> if we go the 2.1 route of focus, I've got a few branches to merge back >>>>>> together (thankfully, git-svn will help a lot in that regard) into trunk. >>>>>> >>>>>> As Ralph (IIRC) pointed out, we don't need to make an explicit 2.0 >>>>>> branch since we can just branch from the 2.0.1 tag itself if necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >>>>> Spring Batch in Action >>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
