newer versions of these libraries are now available does not invalidate
>> those results. It just means that our performance page is not up to date
>> with the latest version. We can try to stay up to date but in my opinion
>> it's okay to let some time elapse if we're
idate
> those results. It just means that our performance page is not up to date
> with the latest version. We can try to stay up to date but in my opinion
> it's okay to let some time elapse if we're busy with other things.
>
> Anyway, if just the JMH tests are ok, I&#x
t; libraries we compared against with our benchmark results. The fact that
>> newer versions of these libraries are now available does not invalidate
>> those results. It just means that our performance page is not up to date
>> with the latest version. We can try to stay up to
esults. It just means that our performance page is not up to date with the
> latest version. We can try to stay up to date but in my opinion it's okay to
> let some time elapse if we're busy with other things.
>
> Anyway, if just the JMH tests are ok, I'll try to do this
libraries are now available does not invalidate those
results. It just means that our performance page is not up to date with the
latest version. We can try to stay up to date but in my opinion it's okay to
let some time elapse if we're busy with other things.
Anyway, if just the JMH
Remko,
Would it be possible for you to update the performance page for the next
release? I am uncomfortable with some of the results because I know they have
changed since 2.6.
Ralph
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev
the
>> artifacts?
>>
>>> On 7 May 2016 at 19:32, Remko Popma wrote:
>>> Understood about Rewrite.
>>>
>>> I figured that the performance page is the last remaining thing for the 2.6
>>> release.
>>>
>>> I had a week of
t to svn? Or do site releases always need to match up with the
> artifacts?
>
> On 7 May 2016 at 19:32, Remko Popma wrote:
>
>> Understood about Rewrite.
>>
>> I figured that the performance page is the last remaining thing for the
>> 2.6 release.
>>
>> I had
> commit that to svn? Or do site releases always need to match up with the
> artifacts?
>
>> On 7 May 2016 at 19:32, Remko Popma wrote:
>> Understood about Rewrite.
>>
>> I figured that the performance page is the last remaining thing for the 2.6
>> release.
For the "nice to have" items, can we rebuild the site after 2.6 and just
commit that to svn? Or do site releases always need to match up with the
artifacts?
On 7 May 2016 at 19:32, Remko Popma wrote:
> Understood about Rewrite.
>
> I figured that the performance page is the l
Understood about Rewrite.
I figured that the performance page is the last remaining thing for the 2.6
release.
I had a week off from work and made reasonable progress but it is surprisingly
time consuming to create the data and then analyze it and do a write up.
Still to do "must
n you point me to the test that generated these results?
>> What is being tested? I am guessing this is how long it takes to call
>> logger.log(level, msg) when the filter DENIES the event, is this correct? Is
>> the unit for the result numbers nanosecond/operation?
>>
>
filter DENIES the event, is this
>> correct? Is the unit for the result numbers nanosecond/operation?
>>
>> I'm thinking to convert the above filter test to a JMH benchmark. This
>> would allow people to quickly verify the results on their own machine.
>>
>>
to convert the above filter test to a JMH benchmark. This
> would allow people to quickly verify the results on their own machine.
>
> I need to think a bit on the items to put on the performance page (and to
> create benchmarks for).
>
> * One theme will be a comparison of Lo
t for the result numbers nanosecond/operation?
>
> I'm thinking to convert the above filter test to a JMH benchmark. This would
> allow people to quickly verify the results on their own machine.
>
> I need to think a bit on the items to put on the performance page (and to
> create
ntId=15256490&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15256490>
for the performance page and use a simpler graph on the garbage-free manual
page.
* Comparing File/RandomAccessFile/MemoryMappedFile appenders
* Documenting the performance of TCP/UDP appender
Goers
>> wrote:
>> Remko,
>>
>> The performance page hasn’t been updated in quite some time. It really
>> could use some of your nice graphs. Also, it isn’t linked from the main
>> menu. The only way I know of to find it is by clicking a link embedded in
Will do. Was on my TODO-eventually list but I'll move it up. :-)
Shall we included it in the manual then?
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Remko,
>
> The performance page hasn’t been updated in quite some time. It really
> could use some of your nice
Remko,
The performance page hasn’t been updated in quite some time. It really could
use some of your nice graphs. Also, it isn’t linked from the main menu. The
only way I know of to find it is by clicking a link embedded in the About page.
Do you think you could enhance that page? It
lter processing.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Sep 11, 2015, at 10:18 PM, Remko Popma <mailto:remko.po...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Ralph, do you know what the numbers in the Advanced Filtering section of the
>> Performance page mean and how they were generated?
Filtering section of the
> Performance page mean and how they were generated?
>
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>> The Performance page http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html
>> has a section on Advanced Filtering containing a perf
Ralph, do you know what the numbers in the Advanced Filtering section of
the Performance page mean and how they were generated?
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
> The Performance page http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html
> has a section on Advanced Fil
that for each release... :-)
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> I'm guessing these numbers are not recomputed for each release either :-(
>
> Gary
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Remko Popma > wrote:
>
>> The Performance page htt
I'm guessing these numbers are not recomputed for each release either :-(
Gary
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
> The Performance page http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html
> has a section on Advanced Filtering containing a performance comparison
&
The Performance page http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html
has a section on Advanced Filtering containing a performance comparison
table with LogBack.
What do these numbers mean? Is this messages per second? And is it messages
actually logged or filtered out? (Also would be
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-182?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ralph Goers closed LOG4J2-182.
--
> Typo in "fundamental tenants" on Per
: Documentation
>Reporter: Log4j User
>Priority: Trivial
> Labels: documentation
> Fix For: 2.0-beta5
>
>
> On the Performance Page
> (http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html), item 3 has a typo:
> 3. Actua
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-182?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Log4j User updated LOG4J2-182:
--
Description:
On the Performance Page (http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html),
item 3
Log4j User created LOG4J2-182:
-
Summary: Typo in "fundamental tenants" on Performance page
Key: LOG4J2-182
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-182
Project: Log4j 2
29 matches
Mail list logo
