Now; you asked for ways of improving the Akka actor performance, we have provided the relevant information for you to do so. Let's stay on topic.
Cheers, V On Jan 7, 2014 7:10 PM, "√iktor Ҡlang" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 7, 2014 6:54 PM, "Rüdiger Möller" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Am Dienstag, 7. Januar 2014 17:52:28 UTC+1 schrieb √: > >> > >> > >> > >> Sounds just like a minor comms mishap. > > > > > > Sorry cannot figure out what this means .. I am a native german > > I am native Swedish; you misunderstood eachother. > > > > >> > >> > >> How is this failover and not "competing consumers"? (i.e. you have to > notice someone is down before failing over, death and delay is > indistinguishable in distributed systems) > >> > > > > > > Maybe I named it wrong, however one can do delayless failover this way. > It doesn't affect any client as the second instance keeps responding, so > there is no delay in processing. > > But it requires that workstealing is OK which is a subset of cases. > > > > >> > >> I'm not sure I follow. Clearly there's a tradeoff between fairness and > throughput due to platform artifacts. > >> > > > > Its more basic: Using proxies for typed actors is really wasteful. > > Provably untrue; You MUST have a logical proxy since it is a distributed > model. The wastefulness of said proxy is implementation dependent and as > such you cannot make any claim of efficiency of unstated implementation or > in general. > > Untyped actors on the other hand replace message dispatch with 'instancof' > chaining, which prevents any hotspot call optimization in case of direct > calls (both actors share same thread => direct method call done instead of > queuing). > > Which is what you want since otherwise you're synchronous, i.e. a > malicious or broken recipient can prevent progress of the sender's logic > leading to extremely brittle systems. See > http://blog.ometer.com/2011/07/24/callbacks-synchronous-and-asynchronous > > Is Akka doing direct dispatch in case of typed actors on same dispatcher > thread (if not: thanks god my bench is not covering this ;-)) ) ? > > No, it doesn't, for the reasons mentioned above. Any distributed model > based on synchrony seems like a bad idea. > > Cheers, > V > > > > > > > -- > > >>>>>>>>>> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/ > > >>>>>>>>>> Check the FAQ: http://akka.io/faq/ > > >>>>>>>>>> Search the archives: > https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Akka User List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to [email protected]. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/akka-user. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- >>>>>>>>>> Read the docs: http://akka.io/docs/ >>>>>>>>>> Check the FAQ: http://akka.io/faq/ >>>>>>>>>> Search the archives: https://groups.google.com/group/akka-user --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Akka User List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/akka-user. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
