Re: Buffered IO

2002-06-24 Thread Ceki Gülcü
> >http://www-didc.lbl.gov/papers/Monitoring-archive-SC02-extended-abstract.pdf > >Wolfgang. > >At 15:49 24/6/2002 +0200, Wolfgang Hoschek wrote: > >>>In early 2002, a user (I can't find the name since Bugzilla is down) >>>filed a bug report claiming tha

Re: Buffered IO

2002-06-24 Thread Wolfgang Hoschek
-abstract.pdf Wolfgang. At 15:49 24/6/2002 +0200, Wolfgang Hoschek wrote: >>In early 2002, a user (I can't find the name since Bugzilla is down) >>filed a bug report claiming that on a heavily used server machine >>adding buffered IO to FileAppender gave a perceptible boost t

Re: Buffered IO

2002-06-24 Thread Wolfgang Hoschek
>In early 2002, a user (I can't find the name since Bugzilla is down) >filed a bug report claiming that on a heavily used server machine >adding buffered IO to FileAppender gave a perceptible boost to logging >performance. As a response we added buffered IO to FileAppender.

Buffered IO

2002-06-24 Thread Wolfgang Hoschek
>In early 2002, a user (I can't find the name since Bugzilla is down) >filed a bug report claiming that on a heavily used server machine >adding buffered IO to FileAppender gave a perceptible boost to logging >performance. As a response we added buffered IO to FileAppender.

RE: Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread Mark Womack
Ceki, > In early 2002, a user (I can't find the name since Bugzilla is down) > filed a bug report claiming that on a heavily used server machine > adding buffered IO to FileAppender gave a perceptible boost to logging > performance. As a response we added buffered IO to FileA

RE: Buffered IO - I suggest that a different test might beneeded

2002-06-05 Thread Post, Richard (HQP)
- From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Buffered IO Hello all, As you probably know, performance of buffered IO is supposed to be much much better then non-buffered IO. In around mid 2001, we had a discussion about

RE: Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread Ceki Gülcü
uffering. Thank you for quoting the javadocs for OutputStreamWriter. It explains why buffered IO is faster when CPU cycles are scarce. (I am referring to the difference in performance between IO.java and IOFabien.java). BufferedWriter avoids frequent char conversion but does not help to re

Antw: AW: Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread Frank-Olaf Lohmann
will be the > >last to finish. > >And as the whole process for one test must be about 40 secondes, > >it is not sure at all that waiting 5 secondes is sufficient to be sure > >that the next test is not started while the current one is not finished. > > Go

AW: Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread Wolf Siberski
> >last to finish. > >And as the whole process for one test must be about 40 secondes, > >it is not sure at all that waiting 5 secondes is sufficient to be sure > >that the next test is not started while the current one is not finished. > > Good point. > >

RE: Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread Georg Lundesgaard
Hi! I have followed this thread, and one thing strikes me: Are you buffering in all three cases, and the only thing different is the flushing? Looking at code in FileAppender and WriterAppender, I see that you wrap an OutputStreamWriter inside a BufferedWriter when bufferedIO equals true, but

RE: Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread Ceki Gülcü
o be sure >that the next test is not started while the current one is not finished. Good point. >As the buffered IO test is the last one, >it can suffer most of this risk. More of the same point but still a good point. >Maybe the results would be different by starting with the Buf

RE: Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread Frissaer, Jeroen
in microseconds. Regards Jeroen -Original Message- From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Buffered IO Hello all, As you probably know, performance of buffered IO is supposed to be much much better then non

RE: Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread Heikki . Linnakangas
Interesting results. It looks like buffering actually hurts performance on JDK 1.2.2 D:\>C:\jdk1.2.2\bin\java -classpath K:log4j-bin.jar;. IO 10 buffered: false, immediateFlush: true, avg log time: 396.25 in microseconds. buffered: false, immediateFlush: true, avg log time: 397.5 in microseco

RE: Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread zze-pegase balg011 Bancharel Fabien DvSI/SIReS/GRE
ted thread will be the last to finish. And as the whole process for one test must be about 40 secondes, it is not sure at all that waiting 5 secondes is sufficient to be sure that the next test is not started while the current one is not finished. As the buffered IO test is the last one, it can

Re: Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, immediateFlush: false, avg log time: 135.89 in microseconds. Regards, Mathias "Log4J Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello all, > > >As you probably know, performance of buffered IO is supposed to be &

Re: Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, immediateFlush: false, avg log time: 135.89 in microseconds. Regards, Mathias "Log4J Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello all, > > >As you probably know, performance of buffered IO is supposed to be &

Buffered IO

2002-06-05 Thread Ceki Gülcü
Hello all, As you probably know, performance of buffered IO is supposed to be much much better then non-buffered IO. In around mid 2001, we had a discussion about buffered IO and although buffered IO is supposedly faster my own tests showed that when outputting logs (write only operation) this