[erlang-questions] How to handle a massive amount of UDP packets?

[Ulf Wiger]

Just to clarify, I definitely didn't mean to imply that we should accept a poor state of documentation. :)

I just wanted to highlight that the problem here was not that the behavior was 'undocumented' (as in unsupported), but simply that the documentation left something to be desired.

This latter problem can fairly easily be fixed, even by the community. It is pretty easy to submit a patch on the documentation (much easier than it is to actually *write* good documentation…)

BR,
Ulf W

On 23 Apr 2012, at 22:38, Jon Watte wrote:

>  
> but if we're
> discussing optimal tuning of live systems, perhaps we can agree that we
> shouldn't let bugs in the documentation limit our options?
> 
> 
> 
> All of Ulf's advice was great, except for the implicit assumption I read in this sentence.
> 
> I know of operational environments, where operators may actively refuse to do anything that is not documented in a reference.
> These are large, performance-critical systems, and I think the operators are totally in their right to do this.
> In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, for experiments, academia, and engineering what-ifs, documentation is optional, and for high-value, operational systems, documentation is required.
> 
> It turns out the type in question was documented elsewhere, so we're in agreement on the particular feature, but I'd like to pitch in a word from the poor operations guys on whom engineers sometimes "dump" "stuff" that will wake them up in the middle of the night without any idea what to do about it :-)
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> jw
> 

Ulf Wiger, Co-founder & Developer Advocate, Feuerlabs Inc.
http://feuerlabs.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120423/deaa4bc4/attachment.htm>