bad for sessions?

[Tom Jenkins]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Perrin Harkins wrote:

| On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 11:57 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
|
|>User session info is stored in two places: in a database table, and in
|
| i.e. all the data you care about is stored somewhere else in addition to
| memcached.  This is a sort of customized version of a write-through
| cache.  That sounds like a good plan to me.  Blindly replacing a
| database with memcached for sessions is what I think people should
| avoid.
|

ah, it was a case of unspoken assumptions.  the types of scenarios i was
thinking of were in essence write-throughs or non-critical data where
loss would be an annoyance but not catastrophic.

i totally agree with your last statement; databases are for persistence,
there's a reason its not called memdatabased.

thanks.
- --
Tom Jenkins
DevIS - Development Infostructure
http://www.devis.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0-nr2 (Windows XP)
Comment: Using GnuPG with MultiZilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCDRSGV7Yk9/McDYURArwfAJoDXAWF1vkAuwakRB3qaiXmECMElgCfWrEL
CgEdk2o6SLfldFEJEHqR9Gw=
=Afk/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----