Transparent failover and restore?
jon at valvatne.com
Fri Dec 17 22:22:52 PST 2004
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:28:10 +0000
Gregory Block <gblock at ctoforaday.com> wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2004, at 21:09, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > Guys,
> > If you want to use memcached as a data store instead of a /cache/,
> > then use MySQL Cluster:
> > http://www.mysql.com/cluster/
> > It was designed for that, doing the whole redundant storage and
> > two-phase
> > commit thing, while memcached was designed to be a cache.
> No, I think the point is quite simple, actually;
> - we cache things because the cost of generating them is too high to
> do in bulk
> - on large-scale systems, or heavily used systems, the cost of
> a server can bring down the system
I think the point is this: If you're using memcached in a way that means
losing a server will bring down the system, then you should probably be
looking at using the MySQL "redundant storage thing" instead of the
memcached "cache thing". Traditional usage of a cache usually means
losing parts or all of it is *not* fatal.
More information about the memcached