memcached "backends" (was Re: Simple questions from memcachednewbie)

[Randy Wigginton]

I've customized MemCached with a (local) mysql backend.  It works for  
our purposes, but is not a general approach.

I found that BDB was surprisingly slow.  MySQL runs in its own  
thread, which gives it a nice processing advantage.

The idea of a "pluggable" backend is positively brilliant.  Should  
probably be a part of the next release.

On Oct 12, 2006, at 1:51 AM, Marcus Bointon wrote:

> On 12 Oct 2006, at 06:29, Jeetendra Mirchandani wrote:
>
>> Tugela actually replaces the in-memory store with BDB
>> Ideally i would just want a transactional BDB as a backing store, and
>> still have the usual memcached
>
> Wouldn't sharedance (http://sharedance.pureftpd.org/) achieve much  
> the same thing? Though it's not related to memcache, it effectively  
> does the same thing, but replaces the in-memory store with regular  
> file storage. The only thing I'd like on sharedance would be its  
> own RAM cache over the top of its file-based storage. The author  
> suggests storing it on a RAM-based file system, but that loses you  
> the main advantages of sharedance (unlimited capacity, better  
> persistence) - you may as well be using memcache.
>
> All these things seem so similar, it's a wonder that we don't see a  
> hybrid solution with pluggable back-ends.
>
> Marcus
> -- 
> Marcus Bointon
> Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/
> marcus at synchromedia.co.uk | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/
>
>