[erlang-questions] can nodes fail/recover too fast to be seen?
Sat Jul 6 00:32:31 CEST 2013
On 07/05/2013 05:44 PM, Per Hedeland wrote:
> Jonathan Leivent <jleivent@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On 07/05/2013 04:31 PM, Per Hedeland wrote:
>>> Jonathan Leivent <jleivent@REDACTED> wrote:
>>>> OK - so it is TCP that saves the day. I'm not sure I want to be that
>>>> dependent on TCP, though.
>>> I'm not sure how to interpret that statement. If you mean
>>> - "I want to be able to use something other than TCP" - fine, as long as
>>> it provides the same guarantees, and you can figure out how to hook it
>>> into the Erlang distribution.
>> I might want to use UDP in the future. Or, something that is just
>> slightly more than UDP - such as providing traffic control, but not
>> reliability. My app is supposed to be able to handle
>> lost/duplicate/unordered messages on is own - so much of what TCP
>> provides is redundant.
> So use UDP to send Erlang terms as binaries over plain sockets, gen_udp
> is a fine module. But don't try to implement Erlang distribution on top
> of UDP - some number of years from now you will at best have
> re-implemented TCP with characteristics that are significantly inferior
> to the real thing. Or you may have something that *isn't* Erlang
The Erlang implementation is a reference implementation - so it will be
translated elsewhere, including to places where TCP has too much
overhead. I'm not trying to re-invent Erlang's distributed
infrastructure for Erlang. But, I might want to demonstrate that the
reference implementation, although in Erlang, can be ported elsewhere
without also having to port much of Erlang's infrastructure with it.
More information about the erlang-questions