Lazy Garbage Collection Question

Brad Fitzpatrick brad at
Sun Apr 30 04:25:24 UTC 2006

We've never needed a reaper and haven't ever swapped.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Adam Hiatt wrote:

> I've noticed a couple threads in the mailing list archives with
> questions concerning the lazy garbage collection for expiring
> entries. One user attempted to write a 'reaper' agent that
> specifically cleaned up their cache. Now this clearly should not be
> necessary, but from what I read it appears that they felt that it was
> critical because the memcached processes kept using memory until it
> had to swap to disk. I wasn't able to determine this from the
> threads, so, is the consensus that these deployments of memcached are
> configured to use more memory than the system will provide to it and
> that when the configured level is approached the OS is forced to swap
> to disk? Or, is there some actual problem that prevents deallocation
> and causes memory leaks force these swaps. I am concerned because I
> am looking into using memcached in a production environment and on at
> least one of the threads I referenced, I noticed that the
> administrators had to restart the boxes every couple of days or so.
> ___________________________
> Adam Hiatt (adam.hiatt at

More information about the memcached mailing list