[erlang-questions] "Erlang, the next Java"

Ryan Rawson <>
Thu Aug 16 04:07:02 CEST 2007


The problem is that 32 CPU systems are expensive. You could afford  
more CPU time if you did a cluster of 2 or 4 proc boxes.  In fact, it  
is the dominant strategy to create large computing centers.

If I had to do it, I would write my own custom distribution protocol  
in pure erlang.

-ryan

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Brian McCallister <>  
wrote:

> On Aug 11, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Ulf Wiger wrote:
>
>> If you want just 1000 CPUs, why not connect 32 nodes, each using
>> 32 cores? Then you don't even have to resort to trickery.  ;-)
>
> If, say, you are writing a management agent to run on tens or
> hundreds of thousands of machines so you want the distribution and
> process monitoring more than processing power...
>
> Being able to use Erlang's default distribution model is a major
> benefit. You cannot really do a flat topology, but, frankly, Erlang
> is kinda beautiful for this kind of thing.
>
> Speaking of global (not quotes) -- do you know the mutex algorithm it
> uses for global locks? Is it possible to use global for a subset of
> nodes (based on number you are willing to tolerate failing or the
> number of monitored child nodes a single can support (ie, 50 servers
> coordinating 1000 children each gives you 50k in a very shallow tree)?
>
> -Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list