vy commented on PR #2209:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2209#issuecomment-1905476275
> What criteria was used to determine that the tests were "ineffective"?
Anything with "perf" in the name was just deemed ineffective?
@rgoers, removed tests either were disabled
rgoers commented on issue #2220:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/2220#issuecomment-1905367158
AsyncLogger will improve the perceived performance of the application by
giving control back to it sooner than an AsyncAppender, and if you have filters
and more than one
rgoers commented on PR #2209:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2209#issuecomment-1905335515
What criteria was used to determine that the tests were "ineffective"?
Anything with "perf" in the name was just deemed ineffective?
--
This is an automated message from the
swebb2066 commented on PR #335:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/335#issuecomment-1905086551
Relevant Ubuntu gcc 9 benchmarks improve from:
| Benchmark | Time | CPU | Iterations |
| | -- | | --- |
| Async, int value using
swebb2066 opened a new pull request, #335:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/335
This PR aims to reduce synchronization contention when logging through
AsynicAppender.
Relevant Windows benchmarks improve from:
| Benchmark | Time | CPU | Iterations |
|
swebb2066 merged PR #333:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/333
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
ppkarwasz opened a new pull request, #2228:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2228
As partial solution to #1344, this PR drop JMX support and replaces the
usage of `RingBufferAdmin` in tests with a direct access to the `RingBuffer`.
## Motivation
JMX is an old
ppkarwasz commented on PR #2219:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2219#issuecomment-1904814620
@raboof,
Could you take a look at this? It looks fine from our perspective.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message,
ppkarwasz commented on issue #2010:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/2010#issuecomment-1904588151
@snaralasetty,
In the sample of your logs I can not find **any** message that matches the
`%d:%-7p:%t: %-60m [%X{AppUserId}]: [%X{TenantId}]: %-25c{1}%n` pattern
ppkarwasz commented on issue #2163:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/2163#issuecomment-1904575744
While working on #2227 I checked that no regressions are present in the
`o.a.l.l.core.async` package in the `main` branch.
--
This is an automated message from the
jvz commented on code in PR #2219:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2219#discussion_r1462240868
##
src/site/asciidoc/security.adoc:
##
@@ -46,6 +46,89 @@ If you have encountered an unlisted security vulnerability
or other unexpected b
The threat model that
jvz commented on code in PR #2219:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2219#discussion_r1462233204
##
src/site/asciidoc/security.adoc:
##
@@ -46,6 +46,89 @@ If you have encountered an unlisted security vulnerability
or other unexpected b
The threat model that
jvz commented on code in PR #2219:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2219#discussion_r1462229803
##
src/site/asciidoc/security.adoc:
##
@@ -46,6 +46,89 @@ If you have encountered an unlisted security vulnerability
or other unexpected b
The threat model that
jvz commented on issue #2220:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/2220#issuecomment-1904487452
I like where this conversation is going so far! Do either of you have advice
on performance measurements here? While I can certainly implement things
according to
snaralasetty commented on issue #2010:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/2010#issuecomment-1904309340
Any further update on this
Piotr P. Karwasz?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and
ppkarwasz opened a new pull request, #2227:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2227
Due to the introduction of `Recycler` in `main` and related changes, many
async loggers can be simplified:
* no thread name caching is required,
* in many methods we can use
vy commented on PR #1592:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/1592#issuecomment-1904116163
@lukaszspyra, I am sorry for the delay. There were more pressing issues. As
a part of our ongoing effort to clean up the `log4j-api` in `2.x`, we are
re-visiting the idea of decreasing
vy merged PR #2226:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2226
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
ppkarwasz commented on PR #1592:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/1592#issuecomment-1903912059
@lukaszspyra,
Sorry for the delayed answer.
Your PR looks good to me, if the default status logger level of `ERROR` can
not be changed.
Personally I don't
vy opened a new pull request, #2226:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2226
This PR deprecates the configuration attribute `verbose` (i.e.,
`
github-actions[bot] merged PR #2224:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2224
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
github-actions[bot] merged PR #:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
github-actions[bot] merged PR #2225:
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/2225
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
franz1981 commented on issue #2220:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/2220#issuecomment-1903661785
Hi!
Entering in the discussion, because I'm one of the developers of JCTools
(@nitsanw is both and the author!)
I've always considered a more preferred
atari83 closed issue #332: Question: using AsyncAppender
URL: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/issues/332
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To
atari83 commented on issue #332:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/issues/332#issuecomment-1903588627
Got it ! Thank you Stephen, Robert for the responses :)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub
ppkarwasz commented on issue #2220:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/issues/2220#issuecomment-1903549607
@nitsanw,
You are probably right: the main difference between `AsyncLogger`,
`AsyncLoggerConfig` and `AsyncAppender` is that the first two have **full
control**
27 matches
Mail list logo
