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