Yeah, what Toru/Trond said.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Toru Maesaka wrote:
Hi!
We are working on creating a "storage interface" to memcached, so that you
can create you own back-end. This sounds like a pretty easy task to
implement in the prototype we have....
Indeed, with the pluggable storage engine that is going on, whats
been debated in this thread would be trivial to achieve. I'm sure
heaps of people would like this asap but at the moment, bug fixes and
the binary protocol takes priority so it would be awesome if people
could resist from taking action, such as forking.
One problem with memcached forks is that some forks have really nice
features but most (if not all) forks are unlikely to be
noticed/exposed/trusted/used by a lot of web developers/shops. This is
sad since this means that so much effort and knowledge is going to
waste. We should hopefully be able to eliminate that waste and the
likelihood of people forking memcached with the pluggable storage
engine architecture :)
Cheers,
Toru
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Trond Norbye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sep 11, 2008, at 5:10 AM, PlumbersStock.com wrote:
In that case.. Would anyone be interested in collecting a bounty on
getting a save/restore feature created that would be accepted into the
main branch? What would be a fair bounty for something like this?
Option to save all items in memory to hdd on shutdown of memcached.
Option to load saved items from hdd to memory on start of memcached.
Option to load, in addition to memory dump, a changes list from a text
file (some simple to produce format - up to you) on start of
memcached. Changes would include anything memcached can be asked to
do.
We are working on creating a "storage interface" to memcached, so that you
can create you own back-end. This sounds like a pretty easy task to
implement in the prototype we have....
Cheers,
Trond
