Transparent failover and restore?
Kevin A. Burton
burton at newsmonster.org
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 http://rojo.com. Ask me for an
invite! Also see irc.freenode.net #rojo if you want to chat.
Rojo is Hiring! - http://www.rojonetworks.com/JobsAtRojo.html
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 - http://peerfear.org/
GPG fingerprint: 5FB2 F3E2 760E 70A8 6174 D393 E84D 8D04 99F1 4412
More information about the memcached