<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>Hi,</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I'm running and developing freeblog.hu which is Hungary's largest blog hosting service. (~50k blogs, ~20k updates frequently). It's developed in ASP.NET 2.0.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>It has a templating system similar to MovableType but all content is generated on-the-fly when requested (like in WordPress).</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>The whole sytem is running on a 2.0Ghz Xeon, 3Gb RAM + a separated DB server. Memcached is running on a spare webserver and it has 1Gb RAM allocated.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><div>We have ~180-250 page impressions a day, but these are only the content pages. So compared to "international" sites it's not so much, but even here memcached can help a lot. </div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>These hits put a moderate load onto my db server (but it's mitigated by an in-memory entity cache), but interpreting the templates and generating the pages took up a lot of CPU time.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>So, i started to cache</div><div> - the compiled templates</div><div> - all of the content (with a 10-30-300 min timeout depending on the content type)</div><div><br></div><div>All of these are stored in memcached, and I'm pretty impressed with it. Before switching to memcached I used the file system for caching the stuff, and the rough testing show ~200% percent improvement in throughput (and ~800-900% compared to the "non-caching" version). PLease note, these numbers are not "official" and very application specific; when I have some free time I'll create some benchmarks, and will post it.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>I have to mention that I wrote a client for myself because I did not like the currently available .NET version. I found it unnecessarily complicated and parts of it show that it' was not developed for .net but just ported from Java. (I can release it after I cleaned up the code a little bit, and if there is demand.)</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Just to sum up: I like memcached very much ;], and it helps a lot.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>If you have specific questions, feel free to ask.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>a.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><br><div><div>On Jun 21, 2007, at 2:51 AM, KevinImNotSpacey wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Yup, thanks mike, I couldn't agree more. Facebook is just awesome. I only really asked about myspace because I know they are a microsoft shop and therefore another website that is MS technology based using memcache would help just as much. Thinking on it now I should have posed the question: What MS Tech based companies are using memcache? <br><br>I love memcached myself, it is so easy and powerful. And yes I appreciate Steve's posts about Facebook and how they are using memcached, the information is very helpful.<br><br>I've got the win32 binaries working with the .NET client tools from the danga website. It all looks to work just as good as the *nix versions, does anyone have any experiences to the contrary? <br><br>thanks again!<br>Kevin<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/20/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">mike</b> <<a href="mailto:mike503@gmail.com">mike503@gmail.com</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;"> On 6/20/07, KevinImNotSpacey <<a href="mailto:kevin.amerson@gmail.com">kevin.amerson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> I recently joined a .NET shop and we're looking at large scale websites on<br>> MS platforms and what technologies they're using to scale out their <br>> websites. Myspace was at the top of the list for .NET sites. Any details<br>> are greatly appreciated.<br><br>myspace should not be used as a technical model for anything.<br><br>imho, with as much capital as they should be able to use, the <br>inconsistent and completely buggy interface is uncalled for -<br>especially going on for this many years.<br><br>facebook would be a much better model. not only is their site clean,<br>consistent, (and uses memcached i might add) but they expose APIs now <br>and seem to generally know their technical stuff. exposing APIs in my<br>mind is the next step when you have successfully been able to please<br>users with your frontend interface. (some people may disagree, saying<br> APIs are nice because other people can make their own interfaces and<br>you don't have to change yours)<br><br>to me myspace was built not to scale properly and ever since has been<br>struggling to do anything to support the load. i mean come on - it <br>started with coldfusion. did they really expect to be one of the<br>busiest sites on the net starting with that? :)<br><br>i really don't think they've put in enough funding or the proper<br>resources from what it seems like, unless they have a secret <br>completely rewritten version in the works.<br><br>not only does facebook use memcached, but steve is one of the most<br>active posters it seems and him/the team he works with has made<br>numerous improvements and i'm quite sure runs one of the largest (if <br>not the largest) memcached clusters anyone has ever claimed that i<br>have seen.<br></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>