Memcached Vs Local LRU Cache

[anand]

To make my point clear, currently I end up replicating the cache. Using
memcached will help me curb over this problem. But the question is that
would using memcached affect the performance considerably or should I rather
use the resident cache and end up sacrificing memory.

On 9/26/06, Ivan Krstić <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> anand wrote:
> > LRU: 10,000 reads averages to about 16 ms that is 0.0016 ms per read
> > Memcached: 10,000 reads averages to about 2837 ms that is 0.28 ms per
> read
>
> This comparison doesn't make even a hint of sense. If an in-program LRU
> cache is adequate for your use case, don't look at memcached.
>
> If you need your resident cache set to be (much) larger than the amount
> of RAM in your machine, or you need machine redundancy, or you need to
> distribute rather than replicate the cache, then memcached is the right
> answer.
>
> --
> Ivan Krstić <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/attachments/20060926/4dd2439e/attachment.html