MemcacheFS

[Cal Heldenbrand]

This is really cool!  One section of our application is mapping, which uses
MapServer <http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/> along with
ka-map<http://ka-map.maptools.org/>.
For tiles & shape files, we have an NFS backend (a bigass NetApp box) to
serve all of these up.  Granted, the netapp performs really well, and
serving up static tiles seems to be an easy task for it at the moment.  If
this particular service becomes really popular, I could see that a large
cache could be helpful to our architecture.

I would definitely be excited if someone started working on this.  (I might
even help out if I can!)

--Cal

-- 
Cal Heldenbrand
   FBS Data Systems
   E-mail:  cal at fbsdata.com

On 5/9/07, Erik Osterman <e at osterman.com> wrote:
>
>  MogileFS is pretty sweet; I'll give it that. We considered it pretty
> seriously before going with GlusterFS. Since MogileFS relies on application
> modifications, which isn't a possibility when the application is blackbox,
> we ultimately decided against it. I don't think they finished the fuse
> module either, and the web page still says, "We've prototyped a FUSE
> binding, so you could use MogileFS without application support, but it's not
> production-ready."
>
> Also, I'm less thrilled about managing MogileFS with all of its Perl
> depenencies. Memcache and GlusterFS are a cakewalk in comparison to setup
> and configure. Granted, GlusterFS isn't yet fully production worthy, it's
> been stable for us.
>
> Note that CacheFS is not dependent on the underlying filesystem, so a
> MemcacheFS developed in the same fashion could straddle multiple exported
> filesystem types, such as NFS, GlusterFS, SMB, OpenAFS, and even MogileFS.
> In much the same way Memcache doesn't tie you to one database, MemcacheFS
> wouldn't tie you to one type of networked filesystem.
>
>
> Thanks for the suggestion...
>
> Erik Osterman
>
> Bruce Wang wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/9/07, Erik Osterman <e at osterman.com> wrote:
> >
> > Right, this is along the same lines, but not generalized. They made
> > Lighty Memcache aware, but that doesn't do much for other applications,
> > e.g. our XSLT processor which can only access files. Further more, since
> > it's not generalized, the cached data cannot easily be shared by many
> > unrelated applications. So, if different applications employ their own
> > Memcache caching strategy, a lot of memory is waisted on duplicate data.
> > Though, embracing this idea, one could use Lighty + modmemcache + webdav +
> > fuse but that sounds very slow :)
> >
>
> http://danga.com/mogilefs/
>
> Is this what you want? Also by Brad Fitzpatrick <http://bradfitz.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> simple is good
> http://brucewang.net
> skype: number5
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/attachments/20070509/cd3f11eb/attachment.html