Alternative Binary Protocol idea for memcached.
dustin at spy.net
Fri Feb 22 02:16:50 UTC 2008
On Feb 21, 2008, at 16:56, Clint Webb wrote:
> I do have working code of a very similar protocol used for a
> different purpose and was curious how easy it would be to integrate
> it into memcached since Dustin mentioned that the protocol handling
> was abstracted.
I may not have sufficiently communicated just how slightly it was
started. I did the minimum required to wedge in the protocol I was
implementing with a goal of not massively disrupting the codebase.
> So when I looked at the memcached code (binary branch) I realized
> that the protocol abstraction could be improved a bit, so thats what
> I've been looking at. I wouldn't say that the performance
> improvements would be massive, but I do think that it would be
> something measurable at least.
It certainly can. My goal was to make it work. I think it's mostly
solidifying and a branch *from* there for experimenting would be good.
Of course, we can't do too much without some kind of benchmarking
tool in place to get a feel for whether we're making things better or
worse, though. That can, of course, happen later, but we've been
guessing a lot in this tree already.
More information about the memcached