Comments below.
At 18:05 04.09.2002 -0700, sk k wrote:
Hi,
I did the test with AsyncAppender using an xml config
file(set the buff size to 1000 even though default
size of 128 should be sufficient. My logger uses a
size of like 60 ) and it seems the performance isn't
any better. Infact the
/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
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
-
|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
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. :-)
Hi,
Though you have to love it when someone uses a mature, popular system
for a few days, then promptly
04, 2002 2:45 PM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: Performance between Log4j and custom in-house logger
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. :-)
Hi
|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
Hi,
There are always going to be difference between any two systems designed
to do the same thing. Your system was obviously designed for your
needs, and probably not much more. Log4j is designed to be generic,
useful to a very broad range of people / applications, easily
extensible, and yet
as logging load increases -- assuming that I am reading
your results correctly.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 9:40 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: Performance between Log4j and custom in-house logger
Hi
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
Hi,
We want to move to log4j and that is the reason why
we are doing the POC.
I really like log4j(features and functionality ) and
wanted to push the usage of log4j in the entire
organization.
I need some input from guru's to see how I can improve
the performance numbers since the decision is
-
From: Shapira, Yoav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 9:40 AM
To: Log4J Users List
Subject: RE: Performance between Log4j and custom
in-house logger
Hi,
There are always going to be difference between any
two systems designed
to do the same thing. Your
Yes, you are right. My measurements doesn't account
for the background thread processing time since it use
the pattern observer/observable(more like publish and
subscribe but in-process).
Performance has many dimensions. You're talking about absolute intervals
for a single operation. If
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
