With only 2GB of data, you can handle that with 1 or 2 machines ... unless you had a massive amount of traffic with a large number of webservers then I could see adding a few more.
Keep in mind also, memcached is very low for CPU use so those machines would still be at "idle" :D On Aug 28, 2008, at 5:53 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:46 PM, PlumbersStock.com > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 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. > > The problem is that without consistent hashing, all your keys are a > miss when someone reboots their machine. > Some clients support consistent hashing, though... > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
