# Channel monitoring/statistics

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/channel-monitoring-statistics/53744>\
**Category:** Performance\
**Tags:** benchmark, channel\
**Created:** [January 21, 2021, 9:04pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/channel-monitoring-statistics/53744 "2021-01-21T21:04:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pmilovanov](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/pmilovanov/32/20965_2.png) [@pmilovanov](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/pmilovanov)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2021, 2:41am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/channel-monitoring-statistics/53744/3 "2021-01-22T02:41:28Z")

</div>

Thanks Julian. I think the overhead can be managed (e.g. for `take!` you can record a time with a certain probability, or for channel length you could add channels to a list and have a separate task poll and record channel length and sleep). But indeed if there’s nothing that already exists I’ll roll my own stuff. I’m also aware that adding this extra tracking might even affect timing and as such the thread dynamics that happens without tracking.

I’m curious to hear whether this idea sounds like a generally sane thing, or completely misguided and there are better ways to debug asynchronous/threaded code. Any thoughts?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/channel-monitoring-statistics/53744)._