memcached replication

[Les Mikesell]

Brenton Alker wrote:

> 
> Which can only really be overcome (I think, if anyone knows better tell
> me :P) by only writing to the master. This means the application, or a
> proxy for it, must be aware of the master/slave situation. But your
> right this doesn't solve the lag problem

> Also, the original poster (Masaaki ?) mentioned it was not "not
> scalability, or high performance" but redundancy and fail-over. Which
> means it would only be used in extreme cases, and you could probably
> forgive the cache misses (dependant on application of course)

Is it really worth this effort compared to just distributing the cache 
across the 2 (or more) servers and making sure your backend data source 
can handle the load when one of the cache servers is down?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com