[erlang-questions] Timers for hibernated processes

[Barco You]

I wonder what the difference is between using erlang:start_timer(Timeout,
Pid, Msg) and directly using the receive-after clause as below:

receive
       _Event -> ok
after
       Timeout -> Pid ! Msg
end



On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Scott Lystig Fritchie <
fritchie@REDACTED> wrote:

> Jesper Louis Andersen <jesper.louis.andersen@REDACTED> wrote:
>
> jla> In *principle* this kind of structure should be extremely
> jla> scalable. I would try reconstructing the problem without any kind
> jla> of other subsystem (TCP, Cowboy, ...) first, so you have a smaller
> jla> failing test case. Then you can probably instrument Erlang/OTP by
> jla> inspecting the Timer wheel. This will probably tell us a lot more
> jla> about the limitations of the timer wheel structure in this case.
>
> Sounds like an excellent use of DTrace, hint hint.....
>
> The hints aren't just for Jesper and Zvi but anyone else who's intersted
> in measuring the behavior of stuff inside the Erlang VM.  This stuff is
> working its way into (we hope!) R15B right now.  To read more about it,
> see:
>
>
> http://www.snookles.com/slf-blog/2011/11/19/dtrace-and-erlang-a-status-report/
>
> http://www.snookles.com/slf-blog/2011/11/19/systemtap-and-erlang-a-tutorial/
>
> -Scott
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20111123/5b688699/attachment.htm>