Mon Aug 1 00:57:01 CEST 2011
Is there a good counter or other way of instrumenting this send queue, btw?
(I'm using R13B3 but am starting to feel like I have to upgrade at some
Americans might object: there is no way we would sacrifice our living
standards for the benefit of people in the rest of the world. Nevertheless,
whether we get there willingly or not, we shall soon have lower consumption
rates, because our present rates are unsustainable.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Ulf Wiger
> On 28 Jul 2011, at 20:16, Jay Nelson wrote:
> >> Ulf Wiger wrote:
> >> The problems with Distributed Erlang are related to a heavy-handed
> backpressure solution, where processes trying to send to the dist_port are
> simply suspended if the output queue exceeds a given threshold.
> > Does this only apply to distributed erlang? What about punishment of
> processes communicating within a node? I've seen senders using more time in
> local comms*.
> Only Distributed Erlang. Local message passing does come with a form of
> backpressure too, as senders are punished with extra reductions if the
> receiver's message queue is big. I think this feature should go away, as it
> makes the message send more complex from a scalability point of view, but I
> know others like it… One can probably reduce locking by allowing the queue
> length value to be somewhat old, for example.
> Ulf W
> Ulf Wiger, CTO, Erlang Solutions, Ltd.
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions