                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikwEmpvAvq776oVZeXPt=_+W3uhkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikPJpX8ryDp+PeEVWeZhQxDy70WnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6eea4df9-384f-4f68-ac2c-4974001e0711@e26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
 <BANLkTin=wQGMusx8NkgP8za=PCh5ekbMjg@mail.gmail.com> <538563a8-5b02-4499-b7d3-9d4bef5f5ba5@hg8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <BANLkTikwEmpvAvq776oVZeXPt=_+W3uhkQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Message-ID: <83378461-d9a3-4784-bbed-edcfc4910f01@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Embedding Erjang in a CEP Engine
From: Jetztgradnet <jetztgrad...@googlemail.com>
To: Erjang <erjang@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> Cost is relative I guess. If you're thinking on the order of 15K
> (interpreted) or 25K (compiled) calls per second
> then erjang.RPC is absolutely fine. I suspect for 99% of use cases that is
> more than a pleasent sufficiency.
>
> I'm in the other 1% camp. On my laptop I'm measuring ~42 microseconds for an
> RPC call (including term
> marshalling overhead) for some simple erlang function calls. But, I work in
> low and ultra low latency environments.
> In the general case 42us is fabulous. If the latency budget on your
> applications critical path is 100us though then it
> represents a considerable overhead! So it's all about cost/value tradeoff.

OK, that's quite some requirement. So good luck at reaching your
target latency!