Guido, Interesting. Can you provide more detail on the CPU problem you were seeing and the environment it happened in? Also interested to hear more about your research and why you concluded that MpscLinkedQueue is preferable to the LMAX Disruptor for inter-thread communication.
Remko On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Guido, > > This is not on our radar AFAIK. > > Your best bet would be to create a patch that makes that part of the code > pluggable with LMAX vs. Lampart, and then add to the benchmark module to > show the difference. > > This is not a trivial task. > > What we could discuss though is whether it is worth it for Log4j itself to > make this pluggable, in which case you contribution would be very helpful! > > Cheers, > Gary > On Jan 25, 2016 9:00 AM, "Guido Medina" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to test the current LMAX >> implementation vs JCTools specifically using the following class: >> >> I currently use them with Akka mailboxes, I tried LMAX once but with some >> CPUs LMAX disruptor was behaving a bit weird which is why I prefer >> Lamport's implementations of circular buffers that are very well known and >> in use by Netty, Akka, etc. >> >> Or I could try and contribute by changing the LMAX for JCTools: >> >> JCtools-core dependency: >> >> <dependency> >> <groupId>org.jctools</groupId> >> <artifactId>jctools-core</artifactId> >> <version>1.1</version> >> </dependency> >> >> Specific class that would replace LMAX disruptor: >> https://github.com/JCTools/JCTools/blob/master/jctools-core/src/main/java/org/jctools/queues/MpscArrayQueue.java >> >> Best regards, >> >> Guido. >> >
