Why not let the fs handle this ??
brianm at dealnews.com
Wed Jun 7 17:38:53 UTC 2006
Jon Drukman wrote:
> Has this actually worked out well in practice for anybody? I've found
> that losing one machine (out of about 100) results in so much db
> thrashing as the keys get repopulated into different places that the
> site becomes basically unusable until enough of the cache has been
> regenerated (5-10 minutes if i'm lucky).
For us, if just one server goes down, the other servers still server
their normal stuff. Only the keys that would have gone to/from the down
server are reshuffled.
Now, if we add or remove a server from the pool in code, that is
different. But, we never do that. Are you removing a server from the
pool manually if it goes down? If so, that will result in a full
reshuffle of your keys.
Its good to be cheap =)
More information about the memcached