Jay Balunas wrote:
----- "Brian Stansberry"
> I see 3 different issues here:
> 1) Code that does per-request logging at DEBUG level instead of TRACE.
> That's in violation of the logging standards and should be fixed.
+1 and that is what we are seeing to some extent. We don't regularly need to known
every time a class is loaded, or a persistence connection is closed.
> 2) How much we log at DEBUG as part of service startup/shutdown.
> this is not a huge problem. We should probably clean it up some, but
> the point of the logging is to make problem diagnosis easier, not to
> produce small logs for infrequent events.
Start up time in no little issue, but in general I agree. if there is extra logging
during start up thats fine. The real issue is the reoccurring logs
> 3) The default loggging level for server.log. If #1 is broken, then
> having it be INFO makes sense, otherwise we punish users for our
> problems. If #1 is fixed, then different people can have different
> preferences, which I expect we're about to debate here. :-) My
> one is to leave it at DEBUG, unless we can make it configurable via
> system property substitution. Otherwise all testsuite runs will log
> INFO unless we introduce testsuite hacks to replace the logging conf.
IMO - I would like to see it at info, and use an ant command to adjust the debug level
for hudson builds. Why punish our users so that the continuous builds log enough.
True, ant based string-replacement could work; that's not too much of a
hack. IMO using a tests-configs type approach to change the logging conf
is too big a hack.
BTW, my concern in this area is not just about hudson runs. It's more
about the general pain level involved in a non-guru testing minor
changes in the AS and debugging any problems. I suspect its a
significant factor in the drift of coders away from working on the AS --
even of developers who work for JBoss, much less external contributors.
So changes that would add another obscure manual step in that process
concern me. But your suggestion is a non-manual way. :-)
> Jay Balunas wrote:
>> I personally think that this give a poor first impression of AS.
> Especially since it does not show in console, so users will not be
> immediately aware of the cause until they investigate the logs.
>> my $.02
>> ----- "Galder Zamarreno" <galder.zamarreno(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Jay Balunas wrote:
>>>> I posted this up to the Design of POJO Server forum, but I'm not
>>> sure if that was the correct place there was not a "Design of AS"
>>>> While doing some performance testing for Seam I noticed that the
>>> default logging for AS 4.2.3 and AS 5.0 CR2 was set to debug, Note
>>> that console logging is limited to info so this only shows in the
>>>> This causes huge performance issues and exposes the user to way
>>> much information. I have discussed this on the EAP side in
>>> JBPAPP-1187. They fixed it to some degree, but it still needs some
>>>> This is basically what I'm seeing
>>>> Starting 4.2.3 - 1.2 mb - with app
>>>> Starting 5.0 CR2 - 1.3 mb - with no app
>>>> A few requests with one user and seam app creates MBs of logs.
>>>> >From my testing performance hit was huge. The average went from
>>> sec to 4 sec with 50 users and 25 requests each when I switched
>>> threshold for the log file to info. The server.log file size (with
>>> few requests) was only 97kb compared to the 1.2 above with just
>>> starting the server. That test was with 4.2.3 not 5.0.
>>>> Is there a reason that the logging is set this way? My opinion is
>>> that we should give the user the best initial performance, and
>>> IMO, it depends on what you're using it for. For
>>> production/staging/loadtesting yes, for development no.
>>> cc'ing jboss-dev
>>>> Jay Balunas
>>> Galder Zamarreño
>>> Sr. Software Maintenance Engineer
>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> Brian Stansberry
> Lead, AS Clustering
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Lead, AS Clustering
JBoss, a division of Red Hat