[erlang-questions] question re. message delivery
Thu Sep 28 21:35:24 CEST 2017
That's a very useful piece of information (i.e., it's useful when
Note to whomever: This is the kind of thing that should be stated
explicitly in documentation (both user & design specs).
On 9/28/17 3:52 AM, Peer Stritzinger wrote:
> IIRC there is one guarantee in newer versions of Erlang (for a pretty conservative definition of new ;-)
> All messages from another node arrive between its nodeup and nodedown message.
> This means that you can always detect if there is a possible message loss between two nodes
> by monitoring the node.
> Or as I understand monitoring a remote process also does this implicitly since a link-down triggers
> DOWN messages on all monitored processes across this link and a nodedown
> Please correct me if this is not true (modulo the Hans Svensson/Lars-Åke Fredlund paper).
> -- Peer
>> On 27.09.2017, at 16:42, Raimo Niskanen <> wrote:
>> I'll try to summarize what I know on the topic, acting a bit as a ghost
>> writer for the VM Team.
>> See also the old, outdated language specification, which is the best we have.
>> It is still the soother that the VM Team sucks on when they do not know
>> what else to do, and an updated version is in the pipeline.
>> See especially 10.6.2 Order of signals:
>> Also see, especially 2.1 Passing of Signals "signals can be lost":
>> Message order between a pair of processes is guaranteed. I.e. a message
>> sent after another message will not be received before that other message.
>> Messages may be dropped. In particular due to a communication link
>> between nodes going down and up.
>> If you set a monitor (or a link) on a process you will get a 'DOWN'
>> message if the other process vanishes i.e. dies or communication link lost.
>> That 'DOWN' message is guaranteed to be delivered (the same applies to
>> links and 'EXIT' messages).
>> An example: if process P1 first sets a monitor on process P2 and then
>> sends messages M1, M2 and M3 to P2. P2 acknowledges M1 with M1a and M3
>> with M3a. Then if P1 gets M1a it knows that P2 has seen M1 and P1 is
>> guaranteed to eventually get either M3a or 'DOWN'. If it gets M3a then
>> it knows P2 have seen M2 and M3. If it gets 'DOWN' then M2 may have been
>> either dropped or seen by P2, the same applies to M3, and P1 may eventually
>> get M3a knowing that P2 has seen M3, but can not know if it has seen M2.
>> Another example: gen_server:call first sets a monitor on the server process,
>> then sends the query. By that it knows it will eventually either get
>> the reply or 'DOWN'. If it gets 'DOWN' it actually may get a late reply
>> (e.g. network down-up), which is often overlooked.
>> The distribution communication is is per default implemented with TCP links
>> between nodes. The VM relies on the distribution transport to deliver
>> messages in order, or to die meaning that the link has failed and that any
>> number of messages at the end of the sequence may have been dropped.
>> Process links and monitors towards processes on remote nodes are registered
>> in the local node on the distribution channel entry for that remote node,
>> so the VM can trigger 'DOWN' and 'EXIT' messages for all links and monitors
>> when a communication link goes down. These messages are guaranteed to be
>> delivered (if their owner exists).
>> I hope this clears things up.
>> / Raimo Niskanen
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 05:16:56PM -0700, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> Joe Armstrong wrote:
>>>> What I said was "message passing is assumed to be reliable"
>>>> The key word here is *assumed* my assumption is that if I open a TCP
>>>> and send it five messages numbered 1 to 5 then If I successfully read
>>>> 5 and have seen no error indicators then I can *assume* that messages 1 to
>>>> 4 also arrived in order.
>>> Well yes, but with TCP one has sequence numbers, buffering, and
>>> retransmission - and GUARANTEES, by design, that if you (say a socket
>>> connection) receive packet 5, then you've also received packets 1-4, in
>>> My understanding is that Erlang does NOT make that guarantee. As stated:
>>> - message delivery is assumed to be UNRELIABLE
>>> - ordering is guaranteed to be maintained
>>> The implication being that one might well receive packets 1, 2, 3, 5 -
>>> and not know that 4 is missing.
>>>> Actually I have no idea if this is true - but it does seem to be a
>>>> Messages 1 to 4 might have arrived got put in a buffer prior to my reading
>>>> them and accidentally reordered due to a software bug. An alpha particle
>>>> might have hit the data in message 3 and changed it -- who knows?
>>> More likely, a TCP connection has dropped, taking a message or two with
>>> it, and once the connection is re-established, stuff starts flowing
>>> after a gap.
>>> With UDP, packets could arrive out of order as well as get dropped.
>>> There are ways to extend TCP, or write a higher level protocol that will
>>> detect dropped connections, and packets, reconnect, request
>>> retransmission - with the result that both the sender & receiver are
>>> guaranteed both delivery & order.
>>> Which brings us back to implementation.
>>>> Having assumed that message passing is reliable I build code based on
>>>> this assumption.
>>> But, for Erlang, we can't make this assumption - the documentation
>>> specifically says so.
>>>> I'm not, of course, saying that the assumption is true, just that I trust
>>>> implementers of the system have done a good job to try and make it true.
>>>> Certainly any repeatable counter examples should have been investigated
>>>> to see if there were any errors in the system.
>>>> All this builds on layers of trust. I trust that erlang message passing is
>>>> ordered and reliable in the absence of errors.
>>>> The Erlang implementers trust that TCP is reliable.
>>> Well, that is the question, isn't it. Lots of things cause TCP to drop
>>> connections. So the question remains - how are dropped connections
>>> handled? And, if after a connection is dropped and restored, how are
>>> dropped messages and/or messages received out of order handled?
>>> Actually, there's another design question in there - in a multi-node
>>> Erlang system, maintaining n2 TCP connections seems just a tad
>>> unwieldy. Personally, I'd be more likely to use a connectionless
>>> protocol, maybe even broadcast.
>>>> The TCP implementors trust that the OS is reliable.
>>>> The OS implementors trust that the processor is reliable.
>>>> The processor implementors trust that the VLSI compilers are correct.
>>>> Software runs on physical machines - so really the laws of physics
>>>> apply not
>>>> maths. Physics takes into account space and time, and the concept of
>>>> simultaneity does not exist, no so in maths.
>>>> It seems to me that software is built upon chains of trust, not upon
>>>> mathematical chains of proof.
>>>> I've just been saying "what we want to achieve" and not "how we can
>>> Which brings us back to:
>>> stated goals: unreliable delivery, ordered delivery
>>> The BEAM Book details how this works within a node, but is silent on how
>>> distributed Erlang is implemented. I'm really interested in some details.
>>>> The statements that people make about the system should be in terms
>>>> of belief rather than proof.
>>>> I'd say "I believe we have reliable message passing"
>>>> It would be plain daft to say "we have reliable message passing" or
>>>> "we can prove it be correct" since there is no way of validating this.
>>> Sure there is. The state machine model of TCP is very clearly defined,
>>> including its various error conditions. And one can test an
>>> implementation for adherence to the state machine model. (In some
>>> cases, one can also demonstrate that software is provably correct - but
>>> let's not go there).
>>>> Call me old fashioned but I think that claims that, for example,
>>>> "we have unlimited storage" and so on are just nuts ...
>>> Agreed. But claims like "when allocated storage reaches 80% use,
>>> additional storage is allocated by <mechanism>" are not just reasonable,
>>> but mandatory when designing systems that have to scale under uncertain
>>> Which brings us back to - how is message passing implemented between
>>> Erlang nodes?
>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
>> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions mailing list
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
More information about the erlang-questions