Different memcached cache sizes across servers

[dormando]

I'd actually recommend against running multiple instances if possible. 
Having larger instances makes multiget's more efficient, and causes 
fewer roundtrips.

If it doesn't work to simply list a server multiple times, those clients 
should be fixed.

-Dormando

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:
> 
> http://www.socialtext.net/memcached/index.cgi?faq
> 
> Mark.
> 
> 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
>     memcached.
>      > 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:
>      >
>      >
>     http://www.socialtext.net/memcached/index.cgi?faq#how_does_memcached_work
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      >
>      > Mark.
>      >
>      >
> 
> 
> 
>     --
>     awl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mark Maunder <mmaunder at gmail.com <mailto:mmaunder at gmail.com>>
> http://markmaunder.com/
> +1-206-6978723