Transparent failover and restore?

Kevin A. Burton burton at
Sun Dec 19 16:11:37 PST 2004

Jon Valvatne wrote:

>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.
But I don't think its too big of a requirement to want to store 40% of 
you're app in memcached. If one server goes down you'll have cache 
misses again until you get back up to your 40%.

This could be a catastrophic failure for some applications and I don't 
think its necessary. I guess you could defend the status quo as being 
good enough but theres no reason it can't be better ;)



Use Rojo (RSS/Atom aggregator).  Visit Ask me for an 
invite!  Also see #rojo if you want to chat.

Rojo is Hiring! -

If you're interested in RSS, Weblogs, Social Networking, etc... then you 
should work for Rojo!  If you recommend someone and we hire them you'll 
get a free iPod!
Kevin A. Burton, Location - San Francisco, CA
       AIM/YIM - sfburtonator,  Web -
GPG fingerprint: 5FB2 F3E2 760E 70A8 6174 D393 E84D 8D04 99F1 4412

More information about the memcached mailing list