What are the semantics of flush_all with delay

[Dustin Sallings]

On Apr 2, 2007, at 13:31 , Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:

> The intent of flush_all with a delay, was that in a setting where  
> you have a pool of memcached servers, and you need to flush all  
> content, you have the option of not resetting all memcached servers  
> at the same time (which could e.g. cause a spike in database load  
> with all clients suddenly needing to recreate content that would  
> otherwise have been found in the memcached daemon).
>
> The delay option allows you to have them reset in e.g. 10 second  
> intervals (by passing 0 to the first, 10 to the second, 20 to the  
> third, etc. etc.).

	Oh, I think that's actually consistent with what I was seeing.  A  
flush would not cause objects to be missing, but I would later do a  
set followed by a get and have that get fail.

	I updated my test based on your explanation and it makes sense to me  
now.  Thanks much.

-- 
Dustin Sallings


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/attachments/20070402/de318cf5/attachment.htm