<div>Thanks Jeetu for the information.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>-Prateek.<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/19/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jeetendra Mirchandani</b> <<a href="mailto:jeetum@gmail.com">jeetum@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">In short, Memcached does not store a replica of any data!<br><br>Although, there have been discussions about this.
<br><br>See these posts:<br><br><a href="http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/2006-October/002856.html">http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/2006-October/002856.html</a><br><a href="http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/2006-October/002891.html">
http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/2006-October/002891.html</a><br><br>-Jeetu<br><br>On 10/18/06, Prateek Mathur <<a href="mailto:mathurprateek@gmail.com">mathurprateek@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Does memcached support failover for the several memcached instances that are
<br>> run.<br>> Memcached is a global cache where entries of the cached are *uniquely*<br>> distributed over a number of memcached instances(servers).<br>> So if there is a strong requirement of having a failover system,would
<br>> memcached fit in this system? In other words, if a particular memcached<br>> server goes down,can those server's keys and values be available on some<br>> other running instance?<br>><br>> Fail over systems generally make redundant entries on different instances of
<br>> servers.So how can memcached fit in such a model if needed?<br>><br>> Thanks<br>> Prateek.<br><br><br>--<br>Regards,<br>Jeetu<br><a href="http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~jeetu">http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~jeetu
</a><br><br>"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."<br></blockquote></div><br>