On Oct 4, 9:53 pm, "Kevac Marko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Dustin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The first search result I found *implied* they were talking about a > > ``get [something] set'' sequence isn't atomic. > > > Are there particular places you're looking? > > > If people believe this, we should work to correct them. > > "And since memcached operations are not > atomic..."http://highscalability.com/strategy-break-memcache-dog-pile > > "Memcache doesn't have locks. Memcache is not > atomic."http://www.bytebot.net/blog/archives/2008/01/28/memcache-keeping-data...
Thanks. I think these guys have been misled a bit as to what atomicity is. I think one of them is talking about two phase commits. > Yeah, other search results are probably about get+set sequence, so > seems that i have somewhat exaggerated confusion about memcache > atomicity, sorry. > > Still, i think this simple question should be in memcached faq. Agreed -- it needs to be clear.
