ultralog: new concept of logging API

[Seth Tisue]

Mikhail Vladimirov wrote:

Still not attributing quotes, I see.
[snip]

I think that your product, far from being garbage free, is nothing but garbage, based on what
you've told us and how you disrespect us.

Unfortunately you've bumped into the village idiot here Mikhail.
Still, never mind, at least you're trying to do something constructive.

lipska

STFU - morphing militant G00n.

 

[Seth Tisue]

Lew is doing good work bumping this discussion up. This is why I'm feeding the troll

and flailing mostly.

 

[Mikhail Vladimirov]

BTW. I've released ultralog 0.1 which is first full featured release of ultralog suitable for real use: http://code.google.com/p/ultralog/downloads/detail?name=ultralog-0.1.zip

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

The idea that high-performance application may want to process data
without producing garbage is not something new. Check, for example,
this link: http://oreilly.com/catalog/javapt/chapter/ch04.html

The same could be said about lock-free design. It is well known
approach to increase performance of multi-threaded applications.

Sure.

But did you measure if it actually does result in a significant
difference in performance?

If not then the performance argument is a bit thin.

Ultralog is not the first Java library designed to be garbage- and
lock-free and focused on demands of high performance applications.
See, for example, LMAX Disruptor:
http://lmax-exchange.github.com/disruptor/ It is all about hot to
avoid lock and garbage creation and it states itself as "High
Performance Inter-Thread Messaging Library".

I know about the LMAX Disruptor.

It is not a logging framework.

Ultralog is even not the first attempt to create garbage-free logging
framework for Java. See, for example, the following link:
https://bitbucket.org/vladimir.dolzhenko/gflogger/wiki/Home It
states its goal as "to create ad-hoc logger for low latency (latency
critical) applications (to be precise for latency critical execution
path) which will affect application explicit and implicit (though gc
pauses) as less as it possible". It does not claim itself to be
lock-free though.

What is new in ultralog in comparison with gflogger, is that it
demonstrates that garbage-free logging could be done without
sacrificing code readability.

OK.

But that raises the question: why did that logger fail to achieve
traction?

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I think that discussion about why one may want to make applications
garbage-free and why garbage-free applications may perform faster and
how much faster they can perform is off-topic here.

No.

If your argument for why your logger is better than the common
ones is that it is faster, then it is very on topic to ask
how much it is faster.

If it is 1% faster then the interest may not be so big. If it is
50% faster then a lot of people could be interested in trying it.

Once application is decided, for whatever reason, to be garbage-free,
which means that normal data processing flow in the application does
not allocate any temporary objects, and once normal data processing
flow involves logging, the application has to use some garbage-free
logging solution, either home-grown or third party. In this case
mainstream logging frameworks simply does not fit, because they are
not garbage-free. Ultralog demonstrates how API for garbage-free
logging framework can be structured without sacrificing code
readability. It does not need to be faster than mainstream
frameworks and switching to ultralog in application that is not
garbage-free itself should not necessarily lead to performance
benefit.

If one has religious beliefs against GC then a GC free app
certainly makes sense.

But otherwise it would be the actual difference in performance (and
performance characteristics) that matter.

Performance tests I have shows that ultralog is usually not slower
than System.out.println() and is not slower than log4j.

That does not sound good for you.

If your supposed faster logger is not faster, then it is pretty\
difficult to argue to switch to it.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Mikhail Vladimirov wrote:

Still not attributing quotes, I see.
[snip]

I think that your product, far from being garbage free, is nothing but
garbage, based on what
you've told us and how you disrespect us.

Unfortunately you've bumped into the village idiot here Mikhail.

Since Lew is contributing with about 10000 times as much as you, then
I assume you are talking about yourself.

Arne

 

[Mikhail Vladimirov]

But did you measure if it actually does result in a significant
difference in performance?

If not then the performance argument is a bit thin.

Ultralog is not supposed to be faster logger. It supposed to be garbage-free and lock-free logger. If one is developing garbage-free application, heor she has to use garbage-free logger, even if it is slower that mainstream one. If one is developing lock-free application, lock-free logger is needed.

Though, performance tests I did show that ultralog is at least not slower than log4j which is de facto standard mainstream logging framework.

But that raises the question: why did that logger fail to achieve
traction?

Maybe it didn't fail. Maybe it failed because people was not ready to sacrifice code readability for performance and use home-grown solutions instead.. Who knows?

 

[Mikhail Vladimirov]

If your argument for why your logger is better than the common
ones is that it is faster, then it is very on topic to ask
how much it is faster.

Fortunately, this is not my argument. My argument is that it is garbage-free, lock-free and yet has clear syntax.

 

[T®oll]

lipska the kat wriggled:

On 30/01/13 16:23, Lew wrote:
Mikhail Vladimirov wrote:

Still not attributing quotes, I see.

[snip]

I think that your product, far from being garbage free, is nothing but
garbage, based on what
you've told us and how you disrespect us.

Unfortunately you've bumped into the village idiot here Mikhail.

Since Lew is contributing with about 10000 times as much as you, then
I assume you are talking about yourself.

Ha ha, very funny, I didn't actually mention a name did I ?

funny that, eh.
you can't be wrong, like... in dodging commitment.

You on the other hand made the correct assumption when you said.
"Since Lew ... "

obtuse ****.
catching your act over in RAT(v) one has to wonder if the
only self administered cure open to you is >240gr of pB!!

 

[T®oll]

lipska the kat wriggled:

On 30/01/13 16:23, Lew wrote:
Mikhail Vladimirov wrote:

Still not attributing quotes, I see.

[snip]

I think that your product, far from being garbage free, is nothing but
garbage, based on what
you've told us and how you disrespect us.

Unfortunately you've bumped into the village idiot here Mikhail.

Since Lew is contributing with about 10000 times as much as you, then
I assume you are talking about yourself.

Ha ha, very funny, I didn't actually mention a name did I ?

funny that, eh.
you can't be wrong, like... in dodging commitment.

You on the other hand made the correct assumption when you said.
"Since Lew ... "

obtuse ****.
catching your act over in RAT(v) one has to wonder if the
only self administered cure open to you is >240gr of pB!!

 

[T®oll]

lipska the kat gloated:

On 30/01/13 16:23, Lew wrote:
Mikhail Vladimirov wrote:

Still not attributing quotes, I see.

[snip]

I think that your product, far from being garbage free, is nothing but
garbage, based on what
you've told us and how you disrespect us.

Unfortunately you've bumped into the village idiot here Mikhail.

Since Lew is contributing with about 10000 times as much as you, then
I assume you are talking about yourself.

We just had a vote here in the office.

liar.
the office space of your fabricated cabal is as closeted
as is your intent to work, at anything.

 

[Mikhail Vladimirov]

Sorry for offtopic.

Lipska, Troll, Arne, Seth, I understand that you have much to say to each other, but could you do this in some other place?