Based on the below, I would suggest a big disclaimer that RFA will NOT LOCK with Mutex during the rolling and will lead to extremely unpredictable results.
Just put the disclaimer where you mention that RFA will make it worse. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Chastain >-----Original Message----- >From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 08:28 >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Name for MutexLock? > >On 2011-09-20, Roy Chastain wrote: > >> <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4net/trunk/src/site/xdoc/ >> re lease/faq.xml> looks good with the exception of ") and has also be >> paid for by a loss in performance." > >> May I suggest a rewording of ". The acquisition and release of a >> Mutex for every log entry to be written will result in a loss of >> performance, but the Mutex is preferable to the use of MinimalLock." > >Will change it. > >> Are you seriously suggesting that we allow the use of a Mutex lock in >> the new RFA? > >I didn't intend to. But since the current RollingFileAppender (and that's the >one I'm talking about in the FAQ) extends FileAppender it can (and will) be used >together with a Mutex. > >Rolling doesn't take the locking model into account at all and there are JIRA >issues (or at least have been until they've been closed as invalid) raised by >people who expect RollingFileAppender to work at least as well as FileAppender in >the "multiple processes write to a single file" >scenario. > >I mention RollingFileAppender in the FAQ to say it is going to make things worse. > >Stefan
