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

Andrew Harbick aharbick at
Thu Oct 12 18:09:47 UTC 2006

I've been watching this thread and I don't quite understand the interest 
in having a different "backend" for memcache.  I'm using it as a caching 
layer (as I expect most people are) between my application and database. 
  In my case there is no reason to use a different "backend" other than 
memory.  I'm just curious about your applications.


Randy Wigginton wrote:
> 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 ( 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
>> marcus at |

More information about the memcached mailing list