On 25-11-2010 11:17, Wilson Snyder wrote:

Why don't you just put the cache on a NFS (/CIFS) mounted
volume?  With the most recent version this should work well.

In our case the biggest compilation issues we have is from Windows and not linux. My thought until now has been that there was a lot of overhead using these protocols. However it may be worth giving it a try.

If you already are, are you really doing enough writes to
swamp a NFS cache server?  It probably requires hundreds of
compiling clients; since we have over a hundred here and
don't see a bottleneck - with a single well performing NFS

In our case we're talking about 25 shared builds coming from like 15 machines.
Can you disclose what the specs are on that machine?

Memcached would provide a nice benefit of providing
tolerance for machines going down, and somewhat better
latency, but perhaps the above ideas with the existing
version can deliver enough performance for you.

I think the idea I like most about this is the simplicity and less overhead. We're talking about plain tcp sockets without configuration needed.

In our environment we're working on many different operating systems. This is why it's even more interesting to cache the whole thing in a simplistic fashion that doesn't require a lot of maintenance.

I see that memcached is limited to 1 mb data per key. Naturally this causes some troubles as many files would either not be cached or you'd need to split it up to more keys.

-- Henrik

ccache mailing list

Reply via email to