logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Fast and Furious
Date Tue, 01 Mar 2016 17:34:55 GMT
Before the talk: Hi, I'm Remko, I help on Apache Log4j, are you available
after the preso to talk about some issue we are seeing?

Gary
On Mar 1, 2016 8:29 AM, "Matt Sicker" <boards@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm attending a JUG meetup tonight with Kirk Pepperdine presenting. It's
> supposed to be a Java performance workshop type of thing, so if you've got
> a decent way to ask about it, I could see if he can help figure out this
> regression. I can at least show off the SimplePerfTest and any
> microbenchmarks we have.
>
> On 28 February 2016 at 11:54, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Take a look at the git bisect command. Might help you find which changes
>> caused the problem.
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 28 February 2016, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for digging in Remko. This is will be a nice theme to
>>> publicize when you get it figured out.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>> On Feb 28, 2016 4:08 AM, "Remko Popma" <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> After removing the potential impact of appenders and layouts by testing
>>>> with log4j-core\src\test\resources\perf-CountingNoOpAppender.xml and
>>>> org.apache.logging.log4j.core.async.perftest.SimplePerfTest, I've confirmed
>>>> my initial numbers:
>>>>
>>>> 2.0: 7.5M ops/sec
>>>> 2.1: 6M ops/sec
>>>> 2.2: 6M ops/sec
>>>> 2.3: 6M ops/sec
>>>> 2.4: 4.5M ops/sec
>>>> 2.5: 4M ops/sec
>>>> 2.6: 2M ops/sec
>>>>
>>>> I tried reverting various changes made to AsyncLogger since 2.0,
>>>> performance improves a little up to 4M ops/sec.
>>>> However, when completely reverting AsyncLogger source to the 2.0
>>>> version, performance is back to 7.5M ops/sec.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try starting from the 2.0 source and getting back to 2.6
>>>> functionality without losing performance...
>>>> (Lengthy process...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is the PerfTestDriver test class (in log4j-core/test, package
>>>>> ...async.perf).
>>>>> Mainly perf3PlainNoLocation.xml:
>>>>> RollingRandomAccessFileAppender, PatternLayout, all loggers are
>>>>> AsyncLoggers, logging a simple string without parameters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Profiling with YourKit did not tell me anything useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm now eliminating the effect of Layouts/Appenders, using
>>>>> CountingNoOpAppender, and seeing similar numbers. So this seems to be
>>>>> mostly an issue in AsyncLogger.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll let you know when I find out more.
>>>>> There's a lot of trial and error here, so this may take a while...
>>>>>
>>>>> Remko
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016/02/26, at 21:02, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.staldal@magine.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Which components (appenders, layouts) are involved in the tests? Would
>>>>> it be possible to do some profiling to see if there is any particular
>>>>> component which is to blame?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> To give you some rough impression on concrete numbers for this trend:
>>>>>> 2.0: ~6M ops/sec
>>>>>> 2.1-2.2: ~5M ops/sec
>>>>>> 2.3-2.4: ~3-4M ops/sec
>>>>>> 2.5: ~3M ops/sec
>>>>>> 2.6: ~2M ops/sec
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, 26 February 2016, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're absolutely right. I still have quite a few unit tests
to add.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Initial perf testing shows a downward trend in Async Logger
>>>>>>> performance with every release. (Logging simple string messages
>>>>>>> without params.) This is worrisome and I'm focusing on figuring
that out
>>>>>>> first: this will likely involve additional code changes and I'll
add more
>>>>>>> tests after that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2016/02/26, at 10:38, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow, I love the activity we are seeing toward 2.6! All the perf
work
>>>>>>> on top of an existing sizable change set. Very exciting indeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There sure are a lot of changes coming in. I hope that we all
can
>>>>>>> pitch in to make sure most if not all of these changes get code
coverage
>>>>>>> from unit tests. I've not checked closely, but it seems like
we may not
>>>>>>> have good coverage _yet_, or do I have the wrong impression?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want to make sure we keep our stability in tip top shape :-)
and
>>>>>>> that we have no regression from previous releases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> [image: MagineTV]
>>>>>
>>>>> *Mikael Ståldal*
>>>>> Senior software developer
>>>>>
>>>>> *Magine TV*
>>>>> mikael.staldal@magine.com
>>>>> Grev Turegatan 3  | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden  |   www.magine.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this
>>>>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
>>>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may
>>>>> not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case,
>>>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply
>>>>> email.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>

Mime
View raw message