John Allspaw allspaw at
Mon Nov 29 21:23:12 PST 2004

"which seems unlikely short of truly mammoth
levels of traffic."

exactly!  :)
suffice to say that it's socket exhaustion that is driving my question.

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:22:53 -0500, Perrin Harkins <perrin at> wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 17:17 -0800, christopher at wrote:
> > >
> > > you might be better off using libhttpd or libwebserver (or whatever) and
> > >   having memcached just reading HTTP requests, instead of adding a
> > > apache-module to proxy requests through to it.
> >
> > To me it just sounds like you are going to end up reimplementing something
> > like squid.
> I agree.  The most interesting feature of memcached is the fancy non-
> blocking I/O that allows it to scale well.  HTTP would have to be
> implemented to work in the same aysnchronous way to make it worth doing.
> This feature request seems to be driven by a desire to use an HTTP load
> balancer in front of memcached, but memcached can already be balanced
> across multiple machines with the hashing in the client libraries.  The
> only reason to do HTTP-style load balancing (i.e. balancing across a
> bank of identical machines) would be to handle memcached servers maxing
> out on CPU or connections, which seems unlikely short of truly mammoth
> levels of traffic.
> - Perrin

More information about the memcached mailing list