[erlang-questions] My frustration with Erlang
Sat Sep 13 22:56:21 CEST 2008
I have mentioned this before on this list, but I'm getting the feeling that
folks on this list must think it's a really stupid idea, or not worth
looking into because I am new to Erlang or some other reason - maybe I say
lots of dumb things - because I have had virtually no responses. Or maybe it
is worth looking into, but could be a big can of worms. EIther way, there is
something nagging at me that won't allow me to let this go until I know a
bit more about it.
Here's the stupid idea: Run one +S 1 VM per core instead of N +S N VMS.
You'd probably have to partition the load to round-robin across the
individual VMs, possibly using some front-end load-balancing hardware. This
is why I keep harping on this: some time ago I put the system I am working
on under heavy load to test the maximum possible throughput. There was no
appreciable disk I/O. The kicker is that I did not see an even distribution
of load across the 4 cores of my box. In fact, it looked as if one or maybe
two cores were being used at 100% and the rest were idle. When I re-ran the
test on a whim, using only 1 non-SMP (+S 1) node, I actually got better
This seemed counter-intuitive and against the "Erlang SMP scales linearly
for CPU-intensive loads" idea. I have not done a lot of investigation into
this because I have other fish to fry right now, but the folks over at
LShift (RabbitMQ) - assuming I did not misunderstand them - wrote that they
had seen similar behavior when running clustered Rabbit nodes (i.e. better
performance from N single-CPU nodes than N +S N nodes). However, they, like
me, are not ready to come out and state this bluntly as a fact because (I
believe) they feel not enough investigation has been done to make this a
It looks, though, like you are in a very good position to see if this makes
any difference, and perhaps bring to light a hitherto-unknown flaw (or at
least hitch) in the SMP implementation, which will benefit everyone if there
is something there and it gets resolved.
What do you think? Is the newbie smoking something, or is there maybe
something to it?
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Joel Reymont <> wrote:
> Foot in mouth. I forgot to supply the node name.
> 'erl -sname 2 -remsh ' works fine.
> On Sep 13, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Joel Reymont wrote:
> > I thought I'd try to connect to the node, find that test process and
> > kill it.
> > erl -remsh
> > Erlang (BEAM) emulator version 5.6.3 [source] [64-bit] [smp:8]
> > [async-threads:0] [kernel-poll:false]
> > *** ERROR: Shell process terminated! (^G to start new job) ***
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions