Different memcached cache sizes across servers
dormando at rydia.net
Thu Apr 3 22:39:43 UTC 2008
I'd actually recommend against running multiple instances if possible.
Having larger instances makes multiget's more efficient, and causes
If it doesn't work to simply list a server multiple times, those clients
should be fixed.
Mark Maunder wrote:
> Excellent, thanks for the quick reply Adam (and Dormando) and the
> suggestion. cc'ing the list to get this in the archive for the next guy.
> I've also added this to the faq:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Adam Lee <alee at fotolog.biz
> <mailto:alee at fotolog.biz>> wrote:
> It doesn't take it into account.
> You could, however, run multiple instances of the same size on one
> server. Not ideal, but works.
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaunder at gmail.com
> <mailto:mmaunder at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Is it sensible to have different cache sizes across multiple
> servers running
> > memcached. I have one machine with 16GB of memory not doing much
> and I could
> > use 12GB for memcached. My other servers have 2GB available for
> > Will it include memory size in it's decision on where to store
> stuff? Or
> > does it simply load share evenly across all machines and if one
> out of three
> > servers runs out of memory then a third of new data won't be cached?
> > This faq entry seems to suggest that the hashing algorithm
> doesn't take into
> > account how much cache is available on each server:
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
> Mark Maunder <mmaunder at gmail.com <mailto:mmaunder at gmail.com>>
More information about the memcached