best way to upgrade
sgrimm at facebook.com
Wed Apr 11 21:35:24 UTC 2007
Most users, I'm guessing, take the approach of using a development
system to track the changes to the memcached code, and only upgrading
the production systems when there's some particular change that will be
of use to them. If you're happy with memcached as it is, that seems like
it might be a better approach since it'll minimize the number of cache
resets you have to deal with.
rkmr.em at gmail.com wrote:
> i get it .. it is jus that memcache is so awesome.. and it doest feel
> all that good losing the cache.. when there is a 90+% hit rate!!
> On 4/11/07, *mike* <mike503 at gmail.com <mailto:mike503 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> the idea of memcache is not a persistent cache... everyone keeps
> butting heads with that concept :)
> if you're looking for a persistent cache that will use disks to
> back it up:
> however, you should have in your code to hit the database/data store
> for the data if it's a cache miss and then update the cache - your
> site may be a little bit slow while it's recaching, but that's the
> point. it's not a reliable data store, it's a volatile way to save
> trips to the database (it's just like RAM (volatile) vs. HD
> On 4/11/07, rkmr.em at gmail.com <mailto:rkmr.em at gmail.com>
> <rkmr.em at gmail.com <mailto:rkmr.em at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > i would like to always have the latest memcached development
> > version running. right now i recompile memcache, kill memcache
> server and
> > launch it again. i lose all the cache. i just have one server..
> is there
> > anyway for me not to lose the cache?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the memcached