Mark - I appreciate your response. I will look into OptimizeIT - I am just not familiar with doing profiling (other than just logical conclusions - like the replies on this topic). Unfortunately, in my current situation there are people who need "real convincing".
I am not in an embedded environment, so memory is not vital - but still pretty important. I liked your comments about garbage collection (another problem we run into time and again) and having static loggers. I am off to do some profiling... Also, I just wanted to thank Ceki, Yoav and Mark. I kind of got hammered with some feedback at work late last week about this and tried to force the issue in the newsgroup, for which I apologize. Thanks for your feedback and help. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Womack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 9:23 AM To: 'Log4J Users List' Subject: RE: StaticHierarchy class? Scott, You can use a profiler tool to get a picture of what the memory usage is for log4j related objects. Something like OptimizeIt will do the trick if you have it, or even the built-in profiler. I have to echo Yoav and Ceki on this. I looked at this in our servlet container, and compared to everything else that is created, the log4j objects are miniscule. That may not be true in all environments as I imagine that in an embedded system environment any and all memory usage would be suspect (you aren't doing an embedded system are you?). But once most of your system is up and initialized, the percentage given to log4j objects is very low, as you will see in the profiler data. I think it also useful to point out that once you have most of your system up, the log4j objects will not greatly contribute to forcing/incurring garbage collections (another performance concern related to memory) as almost all the logger objects will have already been created and static in memory. String creation for logged messages will create memory, but any system you choose will most likely incur this as well. -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Klein, Scott @ TW [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:57 AM > To: 'Log4J Users List' > Subject: RE: StaticHierarchy class? > > > Yoav - > > Do you have some numbers to share for this? I'd love to tell > my bosses "Ceki > and Yoav said so.", but I don't think they'd buy it without some hard > numbers ;) > > > thanks > scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 1:20 PM > To: Log4J Users List > Subject: RE: StaticHierarchy class? > > > Howdy, > > >Why is saving memory not important? > > Saving memory is important. However, like Ceki said (I've > verified this > using a profiler for our system), the Logger instances (even at 1 for > each class) take so much less memory than your application > classes, that > their memory footprint is insignificant. > > And ultimately, IMHO memory is cheap and performance (speed) matters > more than memory. > > Yoav Shapira > Millennium ChemInformatics > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
