To make my point clear, currently I end up replicating the cache. Using memcached will help me curb over this problem. But the question is that would using memcached affect the performance considerably or should I rather use the resident cache and end up sacrificing memory.
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/26/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ivan Krstiæ</b> <<a href="mailto:krstic@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu">krstic@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
anand wrote:<br>> LRU: 10,000 reads averages to about 16 ms that is 0.0016 ms per read<br>> Memcached: 10,000 reads averages to about 2837 ms that is 0.28 ms per read<br><br>This comparison doesn't make even a hint of sense. If an in-program LRU
<br>cache is adequate for your use case, don't look at memcached.<br><br>If you need your resident cache set to be (much) larger than the amount<br>of RAM in your machine, or you need machine redundancy, or you need to<br>
distribute rather than replicate the cache, then memcached is the right<br>answer.<br><br>--<br>Ivan Krstiæ <<a href="mailto:krstic@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu">krstic@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu</a>> | GPG: 0x147C722D<br>
</blockquote></div><br>