Right now the data set is about 2GB but it's been growing fast so I'm looking at the most effective way to use the hardware we already have sitting mostly idle to handle the growth. We have pretty pimp Windows machines but most of them are idle most of the time so it seems like a way better use than sitting idle or running a SETI client. It's largely a theoretical question though. It's interesting to try to put all those spare machines to use.
On Aug 28, 6:39 pm, Joseph Engo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That seems rather overboard, why would you turn desktop machines into > production servers ? Do you have an extremely large data set you are > trying to cache ? What is the size of the data ? > > On Aug 28, 2008, at 5:19 PM, PlumbersStock.com wrote: > > > > > I was considering setting up all our Windows computers on the network > > to run a memcached server and using them along with our existing Linux > > servers running memcached. Is there a negative to using lots of > > servers or to using Windows desktop machines as servers? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" 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/memcached?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
