[erlang-questions] clueless performance question
Thu Jun 12 09:19:45 CEST 2008
The numbers I have seen for Erlang (on AXD301) is nine nines. Would not
"factor of 10" mean that the perl phone switch ''only'' have to reach
On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 18:20 +0200, Mats Cronqvist wrote:
> Kevin Scaldeferri wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 2008, at 5:35 AM, Mats Cronqvist wrote:
> >> Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> >>> ...I thought the "wide finder" work of
> >>> last fall was pretty interesting. (Likewise for the
> >>> WF2 getting started now.)
> >> i tuned out of that discussion, but i was under the impression that
> >> erlang pretty much... sucked.
> >> so it was interesting to see Jeff Atwood's summary(*);
> > I think it's more accurate to say that early, "idiomatic" Erlang
> > implementations sucked. Once you give up on using line-oriented I/O
> > and write a few hundred lines of code using raw I/O, it gets fast.
> > For the record, though, the winning Perl implementation was a couple
> > dozen lines and, while clever, not obfuscated.
> i was surprised that the erlang implementation was able to get within
> a factor of 10 for what's pretty much the canonical perl problem.
> kind of like implementing a phone switch with 10,000 concurrent tasks
> and get nine nines reliability in perl.
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions