At 11:13 04.09.2002 -0700, you wrote: >I made the changes mentioned and still the performance >has increased by only 10-50% but still my custom >logger >results are ahead of log4j.
Do the test with a AsyncAppender BufferSize of 20'000. You'll be logging at "no time" at all. (This statement is very misleading, read below.) >Also measured the cpu and memory and it seems my >custom logger is consuming lesser values since >formatting and writing to file is done in the >background. As others explained previously, back grounding tasks does not necessarily result in better performance. To give you an example, when Alice asks her secretary, Bob, to type a letter, Alice's job is done after she delegates to Bob. However, that does not mean that the letter has been typed. Are you sure you are not measuring the time it takes Alice to delegate as opposed to Bob actually typing the letter? >I did some more testing on writting to multiple >appenders and my custom logger is like 10-300% faster >than log4j. Where is the code? >Are there any plans to re-write log4j (any next >generation version). It seems that log4j needs >an architectural change rather than anything else. I wouldn't jump the gun if I were you. :-) >Any ideas? > >--- "Ebersole, Steven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > SPECIFICALLY: > > > > As Ceki mentioned you currently have logging > > statements being output to both > > files... this will hurt performance in this test. > > Simply setting > > additivity to false for the two loggers should work > > wonders for this simple > > test. Try this for your config: > > > > >############################################################################ > > ### > > # Define root logger/category > > >############################################################################ > > ### > > log4j.rootCategory=DEBUG,dest1 > > > > >############################################################################ > > ### > > # Define non-root loggers/categories > > >############################################################################ > > ### > > log4j.category.ut.log.Log4jPerfTest=DEBUG,dest2 > > log4j.additivity.ut.log.Log4jPerfTest=false > > > > > > >############################################################################ > > ### > > # Define appenders > > >############################################################################ > > ### > > >log4j.appender.dest1=org.apache.log4j.RollingFileAppender > > >log4j.appender.dest1.layout=org.apache.log4j.SimpleLayout > > >log4j.appender.dest1.File=c:/skk/cps/logger/test/test1.log > > log4j.appender.dest1.MaxFileSize=4MB > > log4j.appender.dest1.MaxBackupIndex=60 > > > > >log4j.appender.dest2=org.apache.log4j.RollingFileAppender > > >log4j.appender.dest2.layout=org.apache.log4j.TTCCLayout > > >log4j.appender.dest2.File=c:/skk/cps/logger/test/test.log > > log4j.appender.dest2.MaxFileSize=4MB > > log4j.appender.dest2.MaxBackupIndex=60 > > > > > > > > GENERALLY: > > The way to mimic your setup in log4j would be to use > > AsyncAppender as your > > attached appender. This will create a background > > thread to handle appending > > the actual logging events. > > > > AsyncAppender can only be created from config files > > using the XML config. > > Or you can do it programatically for your tests. > > > > See > > >http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/api/org/apache/log4j/AsyncAppender.html > > for its description. > > > > Also, be aware that the async logging in log4j does > > still strive to maintain > > delivery of generated LoggingEvents to its attached > > appenders in the > > chronological order in which those events were > > created. To this end, it > > uses a bounded buffer as the "queue" for these > > events. This slows > > performance in simple, non-intensive apps; however > > it does ensure delivery > > of the logging events in the correct order. > > > > For a discussion of this see the section on > > AsyncAppender at > > >http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/api/org/apache/log4j/performance/Loggin > > g.html > > > > > > HTH > > > > > > > > |-----Original Message----- > > |From: sk k [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > |Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 9:37 PM > > |To: Log4J Users List > > |Subject: Re: Performance between Log4j and > > custom in-house logger > > | > > | > > | > > |Hi, > > | > > |Any thoughts on how I can improve the > > performance > > |numbers for logging. > > | > > | > > |Thanks. > > | > > | > > |--- Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > |> > > |> What is the difference between Strings, > > taking the > > |> values 2,4 and 8, > > |> and Request, taking the values 100, 1000 and > > 2000? > > |> > > |> Are you sure you are waiting for the > > background > > |> thread to finish? > > |> > > |> Your log4j configuration file suggests that > > your > > |> tests use two > > |> appenders dest1 and dest2. You are aware that > > |> appenders are additive, > > |> right? Does logging output go both > > |> c:/skk/cps/logger/test/test1.log > > |> and c:/skk/cps/logger/test/test.log? Given > > that > > |> writing to a file is > > |> the most time consuming task, is it fait to > > say that > > |> log4j is doing > > |> twice the work roughly at the same cost? > > |> > > |> At 07:29 03.09.2002 -0700, you wrote: > > |> >Hi, > > |> > > > |> >We are planning to move from a custom in > > house > > |> logging > > |> >framework (MyLogger) to using Log4j and have > > been > > |> >doing some performance comparison between > > log4j and > > |> >MyLogger. > > |> > > > |> >The numbers seem to be favoring mylogger > > over > > |> log4j. > > |> > > > |> > > > |> >Sample Numbers > > |> >============== > > |> >Note: Timing includes logj startup time, > > mylogger > > |> >startup time and junitperf startup time. > > |> > > > |> >1) Logging 2 strings, each of size: 128bytes > > |> > > > |> >Request MyLogger(sec) Log4j(sec) > > |> >====== ======= ========= > > |> >100 1.22 1.29 > > |> >1000 1.67 1.71 > > |> >2000 2.12 2.01 > > |> > > > |> > > > |> > > > |> >2) Logging 4 strings, each of size: 128bytes > > |> > > > |> >Request MyLogger(sec) Log4j(sec) > > |> >====== ======= ========= > > |> >100 1.21 1.25 > > |> >1000 1.653 1.82 > > |> >2000 2.24 2.56 > > |> > > > |> > > > |> >3) Logging 8 strings, each of size: 128bytes > > |> > > > |> >Request MyLogger(sec) Log4j(sec) > > |> >====== ======= ========= > > |> >100 1.35 1.35 > > |> >400 1.56 1.71 > > |> >900 1.8 2.35 > > |> > > > |> >4) Logging 80 strings, each of size: > > 128bytes > > |> > > > |> >Request MyLogger(sec) Log4j(sec) > > |> >====== ======= ========= > > |> >100 1.251 1.7 > > |> >1000 1.81 6.1 > > |> >2000 2.15 11.2 > > |> > > > |> > > > |> >Sample code and configuration > > |> >=========================== > > |> >log4j.properties > > |> >============== > > |> >log4j.rootCategory=DEBUG,dest1 > > |> > > > |> > > > > >|>log4j.appender.dest1=org.apache.log4j.RollingFileAppender > > |> > > > > >|>log4j.appender.dest1.layout=org.apache.log4j.SimpleLayout > > |> > > >=== message truncated === > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes >http://finance.yahoo.com > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Ceki TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
