From: Joseph Norton <nor...@lovely.email.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 23:17:02 +0900
Local: Wed, Nov 9 2011 9:17 am
Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] gproc scalability, shared ets, links and using terminate/2
I've been using a "goodbye" patch for the gproc application to help move some of the cleanup work to the client side and lessen the work of the centralized gproc server. https://github.com/norton/gproc/commit/e2c4108c2ceae5d86ca78f9f1d5e5c... Not (quite) sure if this is helpful to your use case or not. - Joe N. On Nov 9, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Max Lapshin wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Ulf Wiger _______________________________________________ > <ulf.wi...@erlang-solutions.com> wrote: >> It's true that link/1 has that advantage. >> The disadvantage is that if the server crashes, and is linked to, say, 100K processes, the EXIT signal will be duplicated that many times, likely forcing an OOM crash. > I understand. But I don't have anything to do, except hoping that > And 100 K of messages is not a reason for OOM. Dumping these messages > By the way, have you seen my previous claim about non-atomic process startup? erlang-questions mailing list erlang-questi...@erlang.org http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||