design question

Vlad Dumitrescu <>
Thu Jul 4 08:58:09 CEST 2002

>From: "Fredrik Linder" <>


>I would go for the many processes variant, a few hundred processes is not
>much in erlang terms. If it makes the design clearer then what's the

Well, I was worried that the scheduler is not as good as it seems to be :-) 
I ran some tests with many processes and chain message passing and it seems 
that it works fine (code available on request). I was probably mislead by 
test I made with previous releases.

Btw, there might be more than a "few hundred" processes in the worst case. 
But since most of them do nothing than sit in a receive and then resending 
the message they got, it seems not to be a problem.

>Though I am interested, what do you intend to benefit from a message 
>manager that you do not get for free with the message passing build in into

Well, there could be some benefits by using a global server - like for 
example global prioritization, but I don't t hink they are important enough 
if the 'many processes' approach works.

>Btw erlang trace is great!
I agree! :-)

Thanks for the input! Regards,

Med MSN Foto kan du enkelt dela med dig av dina fotografier och beställa 

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list