[erlang-questions] failures in supervised processes

[Tim Freeman]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 00:08:04 +0200
Magnus Klaar <magnus.klaar@REDACTED> wrote:

> >
> >
> > > on the remote node to indicate failure.  My question is about
> > > distributed processes that simply die/lose contact.
> > >
> > > Let's say the remote process is on a computer whose network cable is
> > suddenly
> > > removed.  What happens then, does the supervisor do its own active
> > checks,
> > > what is the fallback mechanism there?
> >
> > Normally you would have a supervisor only take care of local processes.
> > Supervising remote processes is probably technically possible, but isn't
> > something I'd contemplate for a production system (but maybe that's just
> > me).
> >
> >
> The distribution protocol transparently support process links and process
> monitors. If the connection to a remote node is lost all links and monitors
> associated with a process on the remote node fire with the reason
> 'noconnection'.

Thankyou for the responses Magnus, Jachym.

So it sounds like there is an active connection/session maintained.  Is it
kept in check with an occasional heartbeat if there is no activity?

Thanks,
Tim