dustin at spy.net
Thu Feb 28 17:04:47 UTC 2008
It's come up a few times. The value seems fairly low for the cost.
I have no doubt it can be made to work, but it'd be harder to get
right and the end result would be a savings of a file descriptor or
two in a mixed protocol installation.
Of course, if someone wants to spend some time trying to build this
single-listener mechanism, I wouldn't mind taking a look at it. I
just haven't heard a compelling enough argument to convince I'd to
take on the complexity myself.
Dustin Sallings (mobile)
On Feb 28, 2008, at 5:36, Roy Lyseng <Roy.Lyseng at Sun.COM> wrote:
> I have a question around the protocol support in memcached:
> Is there any (good) reason for registering one port per protocol in
> memcached? We have the text protocol, the binary protocol, and yet
> other protocols are in the coming. Would it be better to listen on a
> single port per IP protocol (TCP or UDP) and dispatch subprotocol
> requests internally? We could e.g. let the first byte in a packet
> determine the subprotocol (text protocol reserves all lower-case
> ASCII letters...) and then dispatch the socket to the proper
> subprotocol handler.
> I am afraid of the myriad of options that will be needed to
> configure a memcached server. It would be great if we only need one
> option per IP protocol. Besides, it will make it easier for us if we
> decide to register official IANA ports for memcached.
More information about the memcached