dustin at spy.net
Thu Jun 12 05:17:01 UTC 2008
On Jun 11, 2008, at 21:59, Grant Maxwell wrote:
> Dustin In this particular case to do that would completely negate
> the benefit of the cache because better than 99% would fail in the
> cache lookup AND the database lookup. In effect we would be using
> the cache as a virtual table and only refer to the database on
> startup. There is method in our "madness" uhahaha. The number of
> "rogue" actions requested that would be blocked may only represent
> 10% of our total action requests, but would reduce server load
Sounds like a bloom filter (or a variant like a counting filter)
would help you tremendously, then.
> I take the point of some folk who have suggested running a 2nd
> instance of memcached and I am thinking about that. The single
> downside is calculation of the memory requirement and getting it
> right so that we don't lose entries and don't waste memory.
> I've not heard of dynamo etc and will look into them.
AFAIK, dynamo is just a paper -- but it describes something that
sounds like the kind of thing you'd want as far as a persistent and
fault tolerant kv storage.
Perhaps we can get a counter filter backend. Toru? :)
More information about the memcached