Performance Issues - log4net with Visual Basic 2005

[Romil Garg <Ro...@A-t-g.com>]

Hi,
	I am using log4net with Visual Basic 2005 and was wondering if there
are any performance issues with multiple threads of a same process writing
to 1 file. I basically have a process which has a pool of 25 threads doing
some processing and all these threads write to the same file. Once in  a
while we see some methods taking a little bit longer time than usual. Could
it be because of file being blocked by other threads. Are there any
performance issues with using associated with this scenario.
We are using Console Appender, Rolling File Appender, Event Log & SMTP
Appenders for Warnings & Fatal Errors. 

Does log4net uses threads of its own to write to the log file or is it
blocking the application thread to wait to write to the file.

I already searched the web but could not find anything concrete. 



Thanks.

Re: Performance Issues - log4net with Visual Basic 2005

[Matthew Brown <oc...@gmail.com>]

Are you by any chance using the MinimalLock attribute?

But out of the last you gave, I would assume SMTP to be the most "blocking"
of all..

On 2/7/06, Romil Garg <Ro...@a-t-g.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>         I am using log4net with Visual Basic 2005 and was wondering if
> there
> are any performance issues with multiple threads of a same process writing
> to 1 file. I basically have a process which has a pool of 25 threads doing
> some processing and all these threads write to the same file. Once in  a
> while we see some methods taking a little bit longer time than usual.
> Could
> it be because of file being blocked by other threads. Are there any
> performance issues with using associated with this scenario.
> We are using Console Appender, Rolling File Appender, Event Log & SMTP
> Appenders for Warnings & Fatal Errors.
>
> Does log4net uses threads of its own to write to the log file or is it
> blocking the application thread to wait to write to the file.
>
> I already searched the web but could not find anything concrete.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>