memcached "backends" (was Re: Simple questions from
krw at nobugz.com
Thu Oct 12 14:00:47 UTC 2006
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 Bointon
> Synchromedia Limited: Creators of http://www.smartmessages.net/
> marcus at synchromedia.co.uk | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk/
More information about the memcached