18 messages in org.apache.logging.log4j-userRe: [log4j] FW: Database Logging Perf...
FromSent OnAttachments
Vernier, Dominique (DVernier)Jun 14, 2004 5:05 am 
Ceki GülcüJun 14, 2004 5:14 am 
Vernier, Dominique (DVernier)Jun 14, 2004 5:16 am 
Ceki GülcüJun 14, 2004 5:30 am 
poojaJun 14, 2004 6:19 am 
Vernier, Dominique (DVernier)Jun 14, 2004 11:18 am 
Ceki GülcüJun 14, 2004 11:26 am 
Vernier, Dominique (DVernier)Jun 14, 2004 11:52 am 
mrut...@westpac.com.auJun 15, 2004 4:24 pm 
mrut...@westpac.com.auJun 15, 2004 4:24 pm 
poojaJun 18, 2004 12:31 am 
Andreas GutherJun 18, 2004 5:27 am 
Thomas SvensenJun 18, 2004 5:37 am 
Ceki GülcüJun 18, 2004 6:02 am 
NimaJun 18, 2004 9:50 am 
Andreas GutherJun 22, 2004 7:21 pm 
Ceki GülcüJun 23, 2004 7:41 am 
Andreas GutherJun 24, 2004 4:32 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: [log4j] FW: Database Logging Performance NumbersActions...
From:Thomas Svensen (ts@cellus.no)
Date:Jun 18, 2004 5:37:53 am
List:org.apache.logging.log4j-user

Since noone else seems to have any information on this, I can tell you what I heard from a guy working for telco company with a rather huge number of transactions.

They did _not_ get acceptable performance and ended up logging insert-statements via FileAppender and PatternLayout, and then batch-inserting these on regular intervals.

A more manual solution, of course, but a guarantee that db performance will not influence critical production performance. Anyway, I guess db performance will rely mostly on non-log4j related parameters like networking, db configuration etc.

Just wanted to let you know :)

- Thomas S.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4@logging.apache.org