memcached "backends"

[Andy]

On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 14:09 -0400, Andrew Harbick wrote:
> 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.

This Andy completely agrees.  I think different backends are interesting
from an academic perspective, but I really have no use for them, nor
really see how they fit into what makes memcached memcached.

Maybe part of the problem is the way memcached is commonly described, as
Andy did above, with the words "a caching layer between my application
and database".  The key word being "between".  It logically sits between
them, but physically, memcached is more of a peer of your reliable
backing store, rather than a link between the frontend and the backend.
Your "frontend" goes to one source, if it's not there, it goes to the
other.

-- 
Andy <memcached at thwartedefforts.org>