[logback-user] log4j performance comparison

Ceki Gülcü ceki at qos.ch
Fri Mar 18 23:59:59 CET 2011

On 18/03/2011 10:35 PM, hostalp at post.cz wrote:
> For multithreaded case I slightly modified the test to run with 100
> threads, each producing 10000 log events.
> The profile data shows high lock contention in method
> ch.qos.logback.core.UnsynchronizedAppenderBase.doAppend(java.lang.Object) (same
> as I mentioned in my previous mail)
> and thread dumps always reveal one runnable thread doing some writing
> while all other threads are waiting for it.
> Run times are typically 2-3 times worse than with log4j with
> immediateFlush=false (6.3-9s vs. 13-20s).
> So some sort of write batching/buffering really helps in case of heavy
> activity.

The last time I checked the performance difference with and without 
immediate flush the difference was in the order of 10%. It has 
apparently ballooned to something much more significant.

Thank you for bringing this up.

QOS.ch, main sponsor of cal10n, logback and slf4j open source projects, 
is looking to hire talented software developers. For further details, 
see http://logback.qos.ch/job.html

More information about the Logback-user mailing list