I starred it, but I don't even care if it is guaranteed if it scales with my
instances.  If every instance got X amount that would be ok.


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Philip
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 10:38 PM
To: Google App Engine
Subject: [google-appengine] Re: Potential Feature Request Memcache
Allocation and Delayed Writes

Brandon: http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=6078

On Nov 25, 3:20 am, "Brandon Wirtz" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nick can you confirm my suspicion that MemCache does not scale in size 
> with the number of instances?
>
> The bigger ask here was really the ability to specify a size of memcache.
> The preferred Muli-tenant model breaks down if a shared resource 
> doesn't scale with the "load" . If I have 1 gig of data being accessed 
> daily memcache helps a lot.  When I push 6 gigs a day my cache hit 
> ratio falls to nothing.  So right now I'm far better with lots of apps 
> optimized for 500-ish megs of unique data than I am one at 60gigs.   
> That feels backwards of what I want in a cloud environment.
>
> If there my assumption is wrong I need to go looking at why this is 
> happening.
>
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nick Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 5:52 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [google-appengine] Potential Feature Request Memcache 
> Allocation and Delayed Writes
>
> Hi Brandon,
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Brandon Wirtz <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Realizing my app is different than from most everybody elses..
>
> I got to thinking about the thread where we were talking about reading 
> keys from memcache. I know all the reasons this is a bad idea.  But I 
> got to thinking what if it wasn't?
>
> My app is just a big optimized cache, but I rely on the 3 tiers of 
> storage to make it all work and do so quickly. The sum of all the data 
> for the day is about 2 gigs. In a virtual machine environment I would 
> typically allocate a bunch of ram and every so often dump that to 
> longer term storage, but since most my caching is measured in minutes, 
> some is in days, and the longest I ever care about data is a month. 
> the only reason I need long term storage is so that when the memory 
> gets reset, or a new "instance" comes online that I don't have a 100% miss
rate.
>
> The system you describe won't evict data unless you explicitly choose 
> to do so - you are in full control of cache eviction. This is not the 
> case for memcache, where memcache may choose to evict items without 
> notice. I don't think your proposal really applies to memcache, since 
> by the time you do your 'dump', some indeterminate amount of your 
> original data will have already been evicted from the cache.
>
> A much better approach if you don't mind data loss is a write-behind 
> cache, where you schedule a task to write the data to the datastore 
> after each time you update it in memcache.
>
> -Nick Johnson
>
> Why can't I do that with Memcache? Allocate 2 gigs, populate it with 
> data only on a version change. Once a day take all the values and dump 
> them back to datastore so that if the world ends that I don't have to 
> start from nothing. (maybe only write all the values that have an 
> expiration so many hours away)
>
> Since Backends share Memcache this "long" operation could be a 
> scheduled task and execute in the background.
>
> In my case this would save a lot of cycles since my writes are Local 
> Memory, MemCache, Datastore.  And I do so with every piece of data 
> because I can't count on getting a hit from Memory or MemCache because of
their volatility.
>
> But if I had a set amount of Memcache I wouldn't need to worry, it 
> wouldn't be volatile, and Google Could charge me for the resource.  
> Doesn't even have to be perfectly non-volatile because even if I only 
> "back-up" 75% of the data that's fine it is just a cache.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Google App Engine" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]
> <mailto:google-appengine%[email protected]> .
> For more options, visit this group
athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
> --
> Nick Johnson, Developer Programs Engineer, App Engine
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Google App Engine" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group
athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

Reply via email to