memcached++ - C++ API to memcached

[Greg Whalin]

True, I would expect in memory cache to always be faster.  Makes sense.  
The shortcomings of this approach are pretty obvious though I think when 
you start to grow to multiple machines and/or your cacheable data grows 
greater than your physical memory.

greg

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:

> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Brad Fitzpatrick <brad@danga.com>
> To: memcached@lists.danga.com
> Subject: Re: memcached++ - C++ API to memcached
> 
> > >   Unfortunately when testing memcached with this API, we found that
> > >   for our task (caching havy sql requests to database) it almost 5
> > >   times slower than dumb in-process cache.
> >
> > And I can tell you why.
> >
> > If you change this:
> >         _sock_write(sock, buf, buf_len);
> >         _sock_write(sock, (char*)"\r\n", 2);
> >
> > to that:
> >         _sock_write(sock, buf, buf_len); // buf already contains \r\n
> >
> > it will work in at least 2-3 times faster.
> > I.e. writing to the socket with only ONE call should speed up it a lot.
> 
> Also, set the TCP_NODELAY sockopt and only write full buffers, as Anton
> said.
> 
> In any case, in-process caching may be faster, until you run out of memory
> in a single process, or you find your application is running on 80
> machines instead of 1.
> 
> - Brad
> 
>