Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-06-23 19:08:13

On 6/23/21 8:39 PM, Nicholas Neumann via Boost wrote:
> I've got two different rotating file logs that point to the same directory
> (with different file name patterns). Is this in general just a bad idea?
> They end up sharing the same file_collector, which seems wrong, so perhaps
> that is a clue that I shouldn't have my logs set up like this.
> In production I've got a service that compresses, archives, and manages the
> size of the logs. But in dev, I don't, so the number of files in the
> directory slowly grew. But the startup time for my program grew much
> faster. On windows the scan_for_files function in the collector has a loop
> that is O(mn), where m is the number of files in the directory, and n is
> the number that matched in previous calls to the scan_for_files function
> This means the scan_for_files for the first rotating file log in the
> directory has no issue (n is 0), but the second can be problematic. It
> iterates over the files in the directory and for each file in the
> directory, it calls filesystem::equivalent on all of the matches from
> previous scan_for_files calls. On windows, filesystem::equivalent is
> particularly heavy, opening handles to both files.
> Thoughts? Is the two file logs getting the same collector the real issue?
> Or is it my pointing two file logs to the same directory? I see some ways
> to mitigate the slowdown in scan_for_files - e.g., filesystem::equivalent
> could be called after all of the method/match_pattern check, but the two
> file logs sharing the same collector feels like the real issue.

One file collector per target directory is the intended behavior - that
is what allows to maintain limits on the log files to keep.

That you have to call scan_for_files separately for each sink is
unfortunate, but necessary, since each sink uses its own filename
pattern, and needs to initialize its own file counter value.

So, in the nutshell, what you're seeing is the expected behavior, and
expected performance cost. It could probably be optimized if Boost.Log
used POSIX API and WinAPI directly, but (a) that would not eliminate the
fundamental O(M*N) complexity of scanning and (b) Boost.Log is using
Boost.Filesystem precisely to avoid dealing with the underlying API
directly, as there are quite a few portability quirks.

My recommendation to you is to limit the number of files you keep in the
target directory to a reasonable value.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at