Proposal: lets get rid of the non-thread code

Steven Grimm sgrimm at
Thu Feb 7 22:11:52 UTC 2008

I think Facebook would be delighted to not have to shoehorn our future  
modifications into a "can work in either threaded or non-threaded  
mode" framework. There's some stuff we have talked about doing that  
would be much more straightforward to implement if we knew we could  
always count on being able to spawn threads in the background. (For  
example, alternate memory allocators with background defragmentation.)

So +1 from me. The only reason I did the mixed-mode implementation  
when I initially added thread support was because of the belief that  
lots of people still wanted to run single-threaded, which honestly  
didn't make much sense to me at the time -- but it's not my project  
and it didn't seem worth forking the code, so I went with it. As time  
goes on it makes less and less sense to continue to support.


On Feb 7, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Brian Aker wrote:

> Hi!
> Basically:
> 1) No one buys single processors machines today.
> 2) Memcached should be as simple to install as possible.
> 3) Less code to maintain means less... well work.
> 4) Single points of execution makes code less buggy and easier to  
> understand.
> So lets pull the non-thread code out of memcached and default to  
> just the threaded version.
> Any objections?
> Cheers,
> 	-Brian
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at
> Seattle, Washington
>                     <-- Me
>                <-- Software
>    <-- Fun
> _______________________________________________________
> You can't grep a dead tree.

More information about the memcached mailing list