Very interesting...
All tests were performed with a dual core. But what results can we expect if
single core is used?
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-logging.6191.n7.nabble.com/log4j-2-official-release-date-tp40916p40979.html
Sent from the Log4j - Users mailing list arch
Hello Ed,
This is what Log4j 2 can do now WRT to time stamp formatting:
https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/layouts.html#PatternLayout
When you say epoch time, do you mean simply that you would like to use the
result of java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis() ?
Gary
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 a
Thank you for reporting this.
Can I ask you to create a JIRA ticket for this issue? Can you add a few
details: what OS, java version, startup options (especially memory
related), and please attach your log4j2.xml config file.
Ideally also describe how I can reproduce the issue.
What do you mean b
All,
For reasons of simplicity && consistency, I would like to have my logs
have epoch time (plus milliseconds) as their format. I figure:
1. this should be the most efficient way to get a timestamp
2. it is completely clear - unlike local time, or partial times (eg.
HH:MM:SS) there is no questio
I have configured to use all loggers asynchronous. When I ran a small file
over our system, there was no problem.
When ran a larger file though our system, the problem was raised as
described below:
Sep 30, 2013 2:56:08 PM com.lmax.disruptor.FatalExceptionHandler
handleEventExce ption
SEVERE: E
$${mdc:request_id} in a pattern should cause the request_id to be evaluated on
every event.
Ralph
> On Sep 30, 2013, at 8:04 AM, Oliver Flege wrote:
>
> ok, this works for ${...} expressions in the configuration, but I don't see
> how it would
> apply to pattern evaluation. To simplify and re
Hey, that's my favorite log4j question!
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/async.html#Performance
Enjoy!
Remko
On Monday, September 30, 2013, Navindian wrote:
> Performance wise, log4j 1.x is better or log4j 2?
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Jingdong Sun
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Can a
ok, this works for ${...} expressions in the configuration, but I don't see how
it would
apply to pattern evaluation. To simplify and rephrase my original question:
Given a pattern layout with a pattern like: %X{REQUEST_ID}
is it possible to define a default value that will be printed
if the th
I would say, it depends on the underlying System.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-logging.6191.n7.nabble.com/log4j-2-official-release-date-tp40916p40958.html
Sent from the Log4j - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
Performance wise, log4j 1.x is better or log4j 2?
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Jingdong Sun wrote:
> Can anyone tell me when the log4j 2 official release will be available?
>
> Thanks.
> Jingdong Sun
> InfoSphere Streams Development
> Phone 507 253-5958 (T/L 553-5958)
> jind...@us.ibm.com
Hi,
I think the decision should depend on which function you want to offer. For
example, I would put all file appenders in one bundle fragment and the
database appenders to a second bundle fragment and so on.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-logging.6191.n7.nabble.com/log4j-2-offi
So you would have one bundle for each appender?
Gary
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Roland wrote:
> It will not really help you, if required bug fixes have not been
> implemented
> yet. BTW, I gave suggestions, but I believe no one was interested in.
> Package-resolution in OSGi is the main
It will not really help you, if required bug fixes have not been implemented
yet. BTW, I gave suggestions, but I believe no one was interested in.
Package-resolution in OSGi is the main problem because it is very time
consuming. You should start with modularizing the deployment. E.G. make
Appender
Yes, it supports default values. Specify them as properties at the beginning of
your configuration. Then when you specify something like ${sys:foo} if foo is
not defined as a system property the default value will be used,
Ralph
> On Sep 30, 2013, at 3:30 AM, Oliver Flege wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
Hi,
I am considering to switch from slf4j/logback to log4j2;
in slf4j/logback, I can specify a default value for a missing mdc entry
like this:
%d{HH:mm:ss} %X{FOO:--} %c{0} - %m%n
which would print "-" if mdc.get("FOO") is null (the ":-" separates
the key and the default value).
Having a defi
15 matches
Mail list logo
