You seem to be implying that one needs e.g., "green threads" to support huge numbers of "actors". That implication is false.
Also, the only way that Erlang can support running on multiple actual hardware cores is, just as in Java "actor" implementations, to do an MxN mapping of actors to cores.
Now, at one end of the spectrum there's the basic rule of thumb for each system to have O(number of cores) hardware threads and map all of the actors down to that, there are good arguments (by people like Paul Tyma) that promote using 10s or even 100s of thousands of hardware threads in Java on real, shipping OSs (late model Linux is his focus).
Of course, Erlang as both a language and its VM, are matched to each other and their specific problem domain (lots of little actors focused on coordination rather than computational or data transformation intensive jobs) whereas Java is more general. So, things like the management of multiple run queues in Erlang certainly make sense.
No, you brought that (green threads implication) into the discussion. My whole point is that you're making an implication based on that distinction and that's just not true.
Both Erlang and the JVM have to map lots of actors to a number of hardware cores. Lightweight threads of various sorts on top of a smaller number of hardware processes/threads is the same for both. Both Erlang and the JVM use an MxN model. You're last sentence seems to imply that you believe something different.
They make some different tradeoffs because of their goals (coordination vs. general purpose) that has some real implication as to solving particular problems more or less easily. I.e., if you're doing coordination dominated systems then Erlang is easy and the underlying performance loss due to other implementation issues is mitigated. On the other hand, if you have lots of data and computation, then Java's solution will blow Erlang away. The real world is about understanding, choosing, and managing the real tradeoffs -- not pushing some theoretical ideal.
Also, the only way that Erlang can support running on multiple actual hardware cores is, just as in Java "actor" implementations, to do an MxN mapping of actors to cores.
Now, at one end of the spectrum there's the basic rule of thumb for each system to have O(number of cores) hardware threads and map all of the actors down to that, there are good arguments (by people like Paul Tyma) that promote using 10s or even 100s of thousands of hardware threads in Java on real, shipping OSs (late model Linux is his focus).
Of course, Erlang as both a language and its VM, are matched to each other and their specific problem domain (lots of little actors focused on coordination rather than computational or data transformation intensive jobs) whereas Java is more general. So, things like the management of multiple run queues in Erlang certainly make sense.