You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-dev@logging.apache.org by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> on 2017/03/03 16:24:11 UTC
Performance page for next release.
Remko,
Would it be possible for you to update the performance page for the next release? I am uncomfortable with some of the results because I know they have changed since 2.6.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Performance page for next release.
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>.
I was thinking along similar lines about keeping the old results and adding a set of results for the later versions. On the other hand I want to avoid information overload. Let me think about how to present it.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 4, 2017, at 3:24, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think we should keep the current doc pages on the site perhaps under a different heading. This would be interesting for people who cannot keep up with the latest.
>
> Gary
>
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes but only the JMH benchmarks. Is that acceptable?
>>
>> The latency tests and the non-JMH Async Logger tests are too involved...
>>
>> One thing to bear in mind, we carefully documented the versions of the libraries we compared against with our benchmark results. The fact that newer versions of these libraries are now available does not invalidate those results. It just means that our performance page is not up to date with the latest version. We can try to stay up to date but in my opinion it's okay to let some time elapse if we're busy with other things.
>>
>> Anyway, if just the JMH tests are ok, I'll try to do this in the next month.
>>
>> Remko
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Mar 3, 2017, at 17:24, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Remko,
>> >
>> > Would it be possible for you to update the performance page for the next release? I am uncomfortable with some of the results because I know they have changed since 2.6.
>> >
>> > Ralph
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Performance page for next release.
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
I think we should keep the current doc pages on the site perhaps under a
different heading. This would be interesting for people who cannot keep up
with the latest.
Gary
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes but only the JMH benchmarks. Is that acceptable?
>
> The latency tests and the non-JMH Async Logger tests are too involved...
>
> One thing to bear in mind, we carefully documented the versions of the
> libraries we compared against with our benchmark results. The fact that
> newer versions of these libraries are now available does not invalidate
> those results. It just means that our performance page is not up to date
> with the latest version. We can try to stay up to date but in my opinion
> it's okay to let some time elapse if we're busy with other things.
>
> Anyway, if just the JMH tests are ok, I'll try to do this in the next
> month.
>
> Remko
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 3, 2017, at 17:24, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Remko,
> >
> > Would it be possible for you to update the performance page for the next
> release? I am uncomfortable with some of the results because I know they
> have changed since 2.6.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1617290459/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1617290459&linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=cadb800f39946ec62ea2b1af9fe6a2b8>
<http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=1617290459>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182021/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182021&linkCode=as2&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=31ecd1f6b6d1eaf8886ac902a24de418%22>
<http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=1935182021>
Spring Batch in Action
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935182951/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1935182951&linkCode=%7B%7BlinkCode%7D%7D&tag=garygregory-20&linkId=%7B%7Blink_id%7D%7D%22%3ESpring+Batch+in+Action>
<http:////ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=garygregory-20&l=am2&o=1&a=1935182951>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Performance page for next release.
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>.
Ok. I'll focus on those.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 22:49, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> I am most concerned with the two things that have been most impacted - the FileAppenderBenchmark and the MarkerFilterBenchmark.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes but only the JMH benchmarks. Is that acceptable?
>>
>> The latency tests and the non-JMH Async Logger tests are too involved...
>>
>> One thing to bear in mind, we carefully documented the versions of the libraries we compared against with our benchmark results. The fact that newer versions of these libraries are now available does not invalidate those results. It just means that our performance page is not up to date with the latest version. We can try to stay up to date but in my opinion it's okay to let some time elapse if we're busy with other things.
>>
>> Anyway, if just the JMH tests are ok, I'll try to do this in the next month.
>>
>> Remko
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 17:24, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Remko,
>>>
>>> Would it be possible for you to update the performance page for the next release? I am uncomfortable with some of the results because I know they have changed since 2.6.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Performance page for next release.
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I am most concerned with the two things that have been most impacted - the FileAppenderBenchmark and the MarkerFilterBenchmark.
Ralph
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes but only the JMH benchmarks. Is that acceptable?
>
> The latency tests and the non-JMH Async Logger tests are too involved...
>
> One thing to bear in mind, we carefully documented the versions of the libraries we compared against with our benchmark results. The fact that newer versions of these libraries are now available does not invalidate those results. It just means that our performance page is not up to date with the latest version. We can try to stay up to date but in my opinion it's okay to let some time elapse if we're busy with other things.
>
> Anyway, if just the JMH tests are ok, I'll try to do this in the next month.
>
> Remko
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 17:24, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>> Remko,
>>
>> Would it be possible for you to update the performance page for the next release? I am uncomfortable with some of the results because I know they have changed since 2.6.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Performance page for next release.
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>.
Yes but only the JMH benchmarks. Is that acceptable?
The latency tests and the non-JMH Async Logger tests are too involved...
One thing to bear in mind, we carefully documented the versions of the libraries we compared against with our benchmark results. The fact that newer versions of these libraries are now available does not invalidate those results. It just means that our performance page is not up to date with the latest version. We can try to stay up to date but in my opinion it's okay to let some time elapse if we're busy with other things.
Anyway, if just the JMH tests are ok, I'll try to do this in the next month.
Remko
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 17:24, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> Remko,
>
> Would it be possible for you to update the performance page for the next release? I am uncomfortable with some of the results because I know they have changed since 2.6.
>
> Ralph
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org