On 10/24/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Moritz Maisel</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>If there were 3 Servers X, Y and Z. A client uses cache Y. After that Y goes<br>down. Now the client takes another cache. When B comes up again it is again<br>used by the client and we get outdated data ...</blockquote>
<div><br>I would have thought that if Y goes down, the client goes to the database(s). At least that's what I'm planning. If the client can't connect it will go directly to the source. I mean, that's what the client would have to do anyway if it could connect to the sever but the server didn't have the data cached.
<br><br>I'm a new user, and I love the idea of memcached but I don't think it was designed to be reliable. It's not the Google filesystem. That's cool, as long as I don't architect my system as though it were.<br><br></div>
- Bash<br><br></div>-- <br><a href="http://bashcoder.com">http://bashcoder.com</a>