Why not let the fs handle this ??
const at const.org
Tue Jun 6 14:54:10 UTC 2006
I understand the point about cache replication but ,if we work with
1 or 2 huge memcache servers , if they fail , evrything is dead
i mean the db it self cannot provide the power needed without the cache so
quickly die , untill the cache is restored , and the cache need the mysql to
How do you manage this in big setups ?
do you have a dozen of memcaches around ???
the fs has another greate advantage , it cache only used files in fs buffer
, so this mean that the ram usage is very small compared to memcache filled
with all data .
Ps : with reiser fs number of files is not a limitation
Ps2 : i think it can be cool to make memcache , cache on disk the unused
keys this and this will make it persistent on reboot too.
2006/6/6, Brian Moon <brianm at dealnews.com>:
> Constantin B wrote:
> > The purpose of this email is to ask what are the future limitations of
> > my setup ? I mean for the moment it do the
> > job , but where is the gotcha ?
> We are slowly migrating from a disk based cache to memcache. We were
> already using NFS for our cache storage, so multiple copies was not a
> problem. We saw issues with multiple apache processes trying to write
> the same file at the same time. We would sometimes end up with a half
> written chunk in the file making the cache obsolete.
> Basically, offloading that work into memory and spread across lots of
> machines made our caches much more reliable. Faster? I dunno. It
> depends on the exact parameters. The FS can be very fast.
> Oh, another issue was what to do with a cache directory with 500,000
> files in it. Even if its well structured, it can be a nightmare to
> Brian Moon
> Its good to be cheap =)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the memcached