Server Selection

[Richard Thomas]

Last server on the list might be a failover, Not as much memory as the 
main server but better then nothing at all..

I think its just a moot point anyway, Its 100% manageable by the person 
setting up the connections, just list the connections in order and your 
good to go. Why do a internal sort when the user can sort it themselves, 
leaves them in total control.

Maybe a option to sort by I sure wouldn't want it a default.



Richard Thomas - CEO
Cyberlot Technologies Group Inc.
507.398.4124 - Voice


Greg Whalin wrote:
> Ivan Krstic wrote:
> 
>> Lee Kemp wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, so say if i had one webserver that has
>>> [...]
>>> set as there memcached server ips, will this cause issue with  duplicate
>>> items in my cache etc..? or would the hash still work out ok?
>>
>>
>>
>> This is solely dependent on the client implementation. You mentioned you
>> were using the Java API, and from my one-minute glance at its source, it
>>  looks like servers are internally placed into buckets in the order
>> given at instantiation, and the cache key's CRC is transformed directly
>> to a bucket array index, so you can't have servers listed in different
>> orders in your clients if you don't want useless copies of the 
>> information.
>>
>> This should be easily solved by patching SockIOPool to sort the given
>> server list before transforming it to a bucket array. If any of your
>> clients has a server list whose length differs from any other's,
>> however, you're bound to get unnecessary duplication, and there's no
>> easy way around that.
>>
>> Greg Whalin, the JAVA memcached API author, is on the list, so he'll
>> correct me if I misread his code.
> 
> 
> This is 100% correct.  I guess I had never envisioned people putting the 
> order in different.  I would not feel comfortable re-sorting the list in 
> the event that the user intentionally set the order for some reason 
> (can't think of a very compelling one off the top of my head, but does 
> not mean there is not one).
> 
> gw