logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remko Popma <rem...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Confused: want low latency: do I need BOTH async logger AND async appender??
Date Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:19:28 GMT

Without knowing your app & env characteristics, I'd say that looks fine. The ring buffer
won't grow, so if you get bursts larger than 128 log events you will see latency going up
as logging will become IO bound when the ring buffer is full. 

Otherwise all seems reasonable. 
Let me know if you hit any snags.


Sent from my iPhone

On 2013/07/24, at 0:39, "SMITH, CURTIS" <cs0428@att.com> wrote:

> http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/async.html
> This URL describes that v2 has both async logger and async appender.   What is the suggested
config for an embedded situation where I want low latency, nothing fancy?
> I've had do this in code since we don't own the cmd line:  OSGi and system vendor owns
the box and java command line.
> System.setProperty("AsyncLoggerContextSelector", "org.apache.logging.log4j.core.async.AsyncLoggerContextSelector");
> System.setProperty("AsyncLogger.RingBufferSize", "128");        // min size permissable
to keep memory low
> System.setProperty("AsyncLogger.WaitStrategy", "Block");        // less CPU, better for
embedded env
> System.setProperty("log4j2.disable.jmx", "true");               // saves on a jmx jar
and we don't use JMX anyway
> Tnx curt
> Curt Smith
> AT&T Digital Life
> DLC Software Development
> 404-499-7013
> (cell) 678-365-6508

To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@logging.apache.org

View raw message