Erik Osterman e at
Wed May 9 18:21:11 UTC 2007

Python proof of concept code.

It doesn't appear to cache contents, only stat.

Also, on a philisophical side note. I am floored by how often almost 
identical ideas are conceived of by different people at the same time. 
Look at the date on that blog entry!


Erik Osteramn

Cal Heldenbrand wrote:
> This is really cool!  One section of our application is mapping, which 
> uses MapServer <> along with ka-map 
> <>.  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 <mailto:cal at>
> On 5/9/07, *Erik Osterman* <e at <mailto:e at>> 
> 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
>>     <mailto:e at>> 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 :)
>>     Is this what you want? Also by Brad Fitzpatrick
>>     <>
>>     -- 
>>     simple is good
>>     skype: number5 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the memcached mailing list