NON VOLATILE MEMORY, PHP extension

[Roberto Spadim]

maybe :)

i was checking with php
mysql_query('select * from table where 
hash_key='hash_value'');mysql_fetch_row();mysql_free_result();
is faster than
memcache_get(server,hash_value);

i don't know if it's an php extension overload, but mysql with cache (in 
php) is faster than memcache :(, who is providing php extension for php? 
maybe some codes examples could help to optimize memcache


Jan Pfeifer escreveu:
> Actually that was what I was thinking: either a new function, or an extra parameter on the current existing one.
>
> But the clomplexity is added because memcache have now to take care, asynchronously, of writes, buffers, write queues, IO failure, etc ... And that generates bugs and instability.
>
> Not that it is bad, this would be a terrific tool. But I think memcached should also exist without it. Mabye memcache could have a plugin infrastructure, and the write through be done separtedly, using this plugin infrastructure ? 
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Roberto Spadim <roberto at spadim.com.br>
> To: Jan Pfeifer <pfjan at yahoo.com.br>
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 3:48:12 AM
> Subject: Re: NON VOLATILE MEMORY
>
> maybe an new function to write to disk could help
> client should execute some
> memcache_flush_cache_to_disk()
> then server just write to disk when we want :)
> this could help? what you think?
>
> Jan Pfeifer escreveu:
>   
>> One thing to take care with this option is to make sure the disk can handle the throughput of the writes. 
>>
>> I'm sure memcache can easily beat the disk and whatever buffer you set aside for writing to disk could eventually be overflooded.
>>
>> Error handling also comes to mind ... does the cache client writer want to wait for the disk write to return (possibly and error), or should the disk write work asynchronously ? 
>>
>> This is definitely a cool option in some cases, but would add lots of complexity to memcache -- complexity that I might understand others would prefer to avoid ...
>>
>> just my 2¢
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Roberto Spadim <roberto at spadim.com.br>
>> To: memcached at lists.danga.com
>> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:32:54 AM
>> Subject: Re: NON VOLATILE MEMORY
>>
>> sorry i didn't see that email wasn't sent to list
>>
>> but it ONLY use disk :(
>> i want ONLY memory, disk just for rebuild cache when starting memcache =)
>>
>> Jehiah Czebotar escreveu:
>>   
>>     
>>> On 1/11/07, Roberto Spadim <roberto at spadim.com.br> wrote:
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> could we implement an non volatile inteface to memcache server too?
>>>> like every 5 seconds write to disk and when server end too
>>>> in the next startup server can reload data from disk and i avoid
>>>> recaching from my applications
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> no need to write an interface to memcached; such a thing already
>>> exists and is called Tugela Cache. It's basically a memcached server
>>> that saves data in a berkeley db file instead of memory which sounds
>>> like exactly what you are looking for
>>>
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tugela_Cache
>>>
>>>     
>>>       
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
>> Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
>>
>> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
>> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 10/01/2007 / Versão: 5.1.00/4936
>> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.
>
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 10/01/2007 / Versão: 5.1.00/4936
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
>
>
>
>
>