Thanks Remko and Matt for your comments. I will take your suggestions and let you know how it goes.
Just out of curiosity (I don't like to use libraries blindly and way too curious), where are the loggers instantiated/configured?? I followed the code of XmlConfiguration but it seems to only parse configuration items, I couldn't find where it parses and configures the loggers. I admit I didn't look that hard, but if you could provide a pointer to better understand how this all works that'd be great. Thanks! On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mariano, to clarify, I would recommend that you keep your custom context > selector simple and only use it for the log separation that you mentioned. > I would not recommend that you also somehow try to merge the functionality > of AsyncLoggerContextSelector in your context selector. From a performance > perspective that should not be necessary. If you use <AsyncRoot> and > <AsyncLogger> in your configuration then I doubt that logging will be a > performance bottleneck. > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Matt, not sure what you mean. Mariano needs to develop his own > > ContextSelector to achieve log separation. > > So he cannot use the AsyncLoggerContextSelector. > > > > Mariano, I would not be overly concerned with the performance results > > mentioned on the async logger manual page. Bear in mind that in that > > performance test, _all_ that the program does is logging. In the real > world > > (your application) that will obviously not be true: your application will > > do many other things. > > > > Also, mixed async loggers performed much, much better than > AsyncAppenders. > > > > So, unless you have actual measurement numbers for _your_ application, > not > > the theoretical numbers from the async logger manual page, I would keep > it > > simple at first, just get your custom selector to work well, and then > start > > measuring performance. > > > > If you are getting strange results, like AsyncAppenders performing better > > than AsyncLoggers, then let us know and we'll try to help figure out what > > the problem is. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Well, the way to go that's similar to the async version is to use the > >> BasicContextSelector which contains a singleton LoggerContext. > Otherwise, > >> you'll have to keep your own registry that can be looked up dynamically > >> such as through reflection of the caller stack and other fun design > >> problems. :) > >> > >> > >> On 21 July 2014 09:35, Mariano Gonzalez <mariano.l.gonza...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hello Remko, > >> > > >> > I'm still a couple of days away from starting my own performance > >> testing. > >> > I'm taking about the difference in the async loggers manual page, more > >> > specifically, the charts that compare sync loggers, to mixed async > >> loggers > >> > against purely async loggers. Since I need to build my own selector, > I'm > >> > trying to be clear on how this works internally in order to implement > >> the > >> > less latency possible selector and try to minimize the performance > >> testing > >> > effort. > >> > > >> > Thanks for the clarifications! > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > No that is incorrect. > >> > > If you do not specify AsyncLoggerContextSelector but instead > configure > >> > with > >> > > <AsyncRoot> and <AsyncLogger> loggers, you _do_ need the disruptor > >> jar on > >> > > the classpath and this does _not_ use AsyncAppender. AsyncAppender > is > >> > > completely separate from Async Loggers. Async Loggers (mixed or all > >> > async) > >> > > use the disruptor and both need the disruptor jar. > >> > > > >> > > You keep mentioning a performance difference. I was assuming you > were > >> > > talking about the performance test results mentioned on the Async > >> Logger > >> > > manual page, but perhaps I was wrong? Are you experiencing a > >> performance > >> > > difference between the two flavors of Async Loggers in your > >> application? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Mariano Gonzalez < > >> > > mariano.l.gonza...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hello Remko, > >> > > > > >> > > > I think I found the difference. AsyncLoggerContextSelector always > >> > returns > >> > > > the same instance of AsyncLoggerContext, which in turns always > >> returns > >> > > > instances of AsyncLogger, which uses disruptor to handle > >> concurrency. > >> > > > > >> > > > However, with any other selector, a standard Logger instance is > >> > returned > >> > > > and parallelism is achieved through an AsyncAppender. > AsyncAppender > >> > use a > >> > > > standard blocking queue instead of using disruptor which explains > >> the > >> > > > performance difference (there's also the fact that > >> > > > AsyncLoggerContextSelector always returns the same context > instance > >> and > >> > > > does not spend cycles in the lookup, but I think that is not a > >> > > significant > >> > > > cost once everything was warmed out). > >> > > > > >> > > > http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/async.html says that > >> when > >> > > using > >> > > > mixed type loggers disruptor is needed on the classpath. That > seems > >> to > >> > be > >> > > > an error. For what I see disruptor is only used when setting all > >> > loggers > >> > > > asynchronous. > >> > > > > >> > > > Does this make sense? Anyway around this? Do you have a disruptor > >> > > appender > >> > > > somewhere? > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks! > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Remko Popma < > >> remko.po...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > To be honest, I haven't investigated in detail the reason for > the > >> > > > > difference in throughput in the performance test. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Are you measuring the performance of your application container, > >> and > >> > > can > >> > > > > you see an improvement when using Async Loggers? > >> > > > > Do you see a large difference in performance _in your > application_ > >> > > > between > >> > > > > making all loggers Asynchronous and using mixed synchronous and > >> > > > > Asynchronous loggers? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Mariano Gonzalez < > >> > > > > mariano.l.gonza...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hello Remko, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for the insight. I guess my case falls into the wrong > >> end of > >> > > the > >> > > > > > pareto law. My project is a low latency application container, > >> so I > >> > > > need > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > have: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > - low latency > >> > > > > > - log separation (I actually had to implement my own > context > >> > > > selector > >> > > > > > because my logic is more complicated than the standard > >> > > > > > ClassLoaderContextSelector case) > >> > > > > > - I want async loggers by default, but deployed apps need > to > >> be > >> > > able > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > specify sync loggers > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Right now I'm kinda meeting those requirements using config > >> file, > >> > > > > AsyncRoot > >> > > > > > and my custom selector, but it'd be really great to achieve a > >> > > > performance > >> > > > > > level like the one that AsyncContextSelector promises. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Is there a way of doing that? For what I see on the code, the > >> > > > > > AsyncLoggerContextSelector's secret sauce is just to always > >> return > >> > an > >> > > > > > AsyncLogger on the newInstance() method. Why is that so much > >> faster > >> > > > than > >> > > > > > what ClassLoaderLoggerContextSelector does? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks! > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Remko Popma < > >> > remko.po...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The Async Loggers created with the context selector have a > >> > slightly > >> > > > > > > different mechanism. One of the differences is that LogEvent > >> > > objects > >> > > > > are > >> > > > > > > re-used. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > However, unless your application is in the low-latency > space, > >> I > >> > > would > >> > > > > not > >> > > > > > > worry too much about the performance difference. Both > flavors > >> of > >> > > > Async > >> > > > > > > Loggers are much faster than the alternative (Async > >> Appenders). > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Your point is valid though. I've been thinking about an > >> > alternative > >> > > > way > >> > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > configure Async Loggers than via system properties. The work > >> in > >> > > > > progress > >> > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > tracked in Jira ticket LOG4J2-321 > >> > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-321>. This is > >> > still > >> > > in > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > concept phase though. Meanwhile your best option is probably > >> to > >> > use > >> > > > > > > ClassLoaderContextSelector and configure with <AsyncRoot> > and > >> > > > > > > <AsyncLogger>. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Mariano Gonzalez < > >> > > > > > > mariano.l.gonza...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello, > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > According to the performance charts in the documentation, > >> > log4j2 > >> > > > has > >> > > > > a > >> > > > > > > > significantly higher throughput when using > >> > > > AsyncLoggerContextSelector > >> > > > > > > than > >> > > > > > > > when using all async loggers with any different selector. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Why is that? Is it just because the same context is always > >> > reused > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > > > there's no lookup like in the ClassLoaderContextSelector > >> case? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If I need functionality similar to > >> ClassLoaderContextSelector, > >> > is > >> > > > > there > >> > > > > > > any > >> > > > > > > > way to get a throughput similar to > >> AsyncLoggerContextSelector? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks! > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > >
