[logback-user] log4j performance comparison

[Ceki Gülcü]

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