> Even though Erlang’s asynchronous message-passing model allows it to handle network latency effectively, a process does not need to wait for a response after sending a message, allowing it to continue executing other tasks. It is still discouraged to use Erlang distribution in a geographically distributed system. The Erlang distribution was designed for communication within a data center or preferably within the same rack in a data center. For geographically distributed systems other asynchronous communication patterns are suggested.
Not clear why they make this claim, but I think it refers to how Erlang/OTP handles distribution out of the box. Tools like Partisan seem to provide better defaults: https://github.com/lasp-lang/partisan
> Even though Erlang’s asynchronous message-passing model allows it to handle network latency effectively, a process does not need to wait for a response after sending a message, allowing it to continue executing other tasks. It is still discouraged to use Erlang distribution in a geographically distributed system. The Erlang distribution was designed for communication within a data center or preferably within the same rack in a data center. For geographically distributed systems other asynchronous communication patterns are suggested.
Not clear why they make this claim, but I think it refers to how Erlang/OTP handles distribution out of the box. Tools like Partisan seem to provide better defaults: https://github.com/lasp-lang/partisan