«

lipska the kat <> aka Paul G Derbyshire wrote:
>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.
>Still, never mind, at least you're trying to do something constructive.
>
>lipska

STFU - morphing militant G00n.

Mikhail Vladimirov - 0ne dummass rube wrote:
>That Derbyshire wannabe programmer wrote:
>> Still, never mind, at least you're trying to do something constructive.
>Lew is doing good work bumping this discussion up. This is why I'm feeding the troll

and flailing mostly.

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/do...tralog-0.1.zip

On 1/29/2013 10:57 PM, Mikhail Vladimirov wrote:
>>> 1. Garbage-free logging. You can format and send out log message
>>> without allocating any new objects. 2. Lock-free logging. you
>>> can format and send out log message without acquiring any locks.
>>> 3. Log message templates are compiled into Java bytecode in run
>>> time or even in compile time, which makes message formatting
>>> really fast.
>> Any measurements of the impact for some realistic code?
> 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.dolzh...gger/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

On 1/30/2013 2:19 AM, Mikhail Vladimirov wrote:
>> In other words, no, no measurements.
> 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

On 1/30/2013 11:54 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> 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.

Arne

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:43:03 AM UTC+4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> 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.

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:43:03 AM UTC+4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> 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?

On Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:47:45 AM UTC+4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> 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.

lipska the kat wriggled:
<>:
>On 31/01/13 02:50, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/30/2013 11:54 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> 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!!

lipska the kat wriggled:
<>:
>On 31/01/13 02:50, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/30/2013 11:54 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> 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!!