Which way is better for running memcached?
sgrimm at facebook.com
Fri Feb 16 03:12:16 UTC 2007
Memcached is very fast. If you only have 2GB of data you want to cache,
chances are you will never be blocking waiting for memcached (beyond the
network round-trip time to the memcached server, of course.) Our
production memcached instances each typically service over 30,000
requests a second and don't come close to overloading the machines
they're running on.
The second way is almost certainly better because you will be able to
bundle more keys together in a "get" request when you want multiple
pieces of data. Requesting two keys in one "get" request is *much* more
efficient than requesting one key in each of two requests. The more
memcached instances you have to spread your load across, the less chance
that any two keys you request will live on the same server.
Jm lists wrote:
> Hello lists,
> I have the host which would run memcached.It has 3G memory totally and
> I would like to run memcached with 2G memory.Which is the more
> effective way below?
> the first way:
> ./memcached -d -m 1024 -l 192.168.1.102 -p 1230
> ./memcached -d -m 1024 -l 192.168.1.102 -p 1231
> the second way:
> ./memcached -d -m 2048 -l 192.168.1.102 -p 1230
> I want to know,would the first way decrease the chance of blocking for
> socket connection?
More information about the memcached