[erlang-questions] Supervisor tree width?

Angel Alvarez (GMAIL) angeljalvarezmiguel@REDACTED
Fri Jun 6 22:31:49 CEST 2014

Sorry I came across this, and I need to ask,

I'm planning to have several thousand children (FSM machines) under the same supervisor. 

There is one FSM per client and they don't talk to each other so they are unrelated in this regard ..

I thought "simple_one_one" is designed to cope with this, is it the right thing to do? or I'm missing something out? 

Thanks in advance!

Angel Alvarez (GMAIL)

El 30/05/2014, a las 15:02, Dmitry Kolesnikov <dmkolesnikov@REDACTED> escribió:

> I’ll be trivial to say that design of supervisor tree is an application specific. 
> One lesson learned is that supervision it’s about the guarantees. Take a look into Fred’s post
> http://ferd.ca/it-s-about-the-guarantees.html
> Personally, I’am splitting an application to smaller functional units with own supervisors per unit. 
> If an unit design needs 15 children then I see no issue to have them.
> However, if 15 children do not have any relations each other then I am combining them to guaranty deterministic application state after failure. 
> Best Regards, 
> Dmitry
> On 30 May 2014, at 14:28, Roger Lipscombe <roger@REDACTED> wrote:
>> I'm concerned that the top-level supervisor in one of our applications
>> has too many children. It has about 15 children, which are only
>> vaguely related to each other.
>> What's a good rule-of-thumb for whether a supervisor tree is too wide?
>> Or too deep? Or am I thinking on the wrong level here?
>> Thanks,
>> Roger.
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list