I dont disagree on any point. I would still pick an implementation where I have control, management, & observability of the separate processes, such that I can

I dont disagree on any point. I would still pick an implementation where I have control, management, & observability of the separate processes, such that I can see & trade off where resources are going. Mastadon aint fast, but, this current architecture has been invaluable in letting folks degrade gracefully. Sidekiq for ingress gets backed up, but often the web service is totally responsive and egress sidekiq (if seperately configured) works fine. Picking a more effective runtime might give you a lot more headroom, but I'd still want a plan & ability to cope & degrade gracefully when the system does come under pressure, and Im not sure Erlang/Beam or any other single process system is going to have such innate ability to have the different things dealt with differently. Bulkhead pattern is a truly great one- keep the whole ship from sinking when one part floods. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/patterns/bulkhead https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/pattern...