Your feedback

Timo Ewalds timo at
Sat Jul 2 11:58:33 PDT 2005

Memcached is O(1) while most file systems are much slower than that 
(reiser is O(ln(n)) I think, ext2 is O(n) I think), so for large caches, 
memcached is probably much faster than the filesystem. There are some 
other benefits though. Memcached keeps a fixed size which expires old 
data as needed. A ram disk would keep a fixed size and clear on a 
restart, but would not clear old data to make room for new data. The 
biggest benefit is that it works for many front ends and easily scales 
to many memcached backends, ie it isn't limited to a local cache.


Jamie Burns wrote:

> Hi Guys/Gals,
> I currently implement caching in my application, and I have abstracted 
> this into an object. So, implementing a memcached backend would be 
> trivial.
> My question is: how much faster do you think memcached would be over 
> my current implementation which involves storing and retrieving 
> objects using the filesystem. And if I was to use a RAMDISK, would 
> there still be a performance gain?
> Thanks for your thoughts -- Will help me decide wether to write the 
> memcached backend.
> :o)
> Jamie.

More information about the memcached mailing list