That sounds like a terrible idea. I was going to leave it at that, but I'll elaborate:
* memcached is a cache. do you want to lose your disk blocks randomly? * if you just want fast database slave replicas and don't care about reliability, there are already in-kernel memory filesystems and memory block devices. you'll get much more memory efficiency over those, as there won't be per-item overhead and internal fragmentation. (admittedly you could tune memcached's slab sizes to the size of your blocks, but you'd still have per-item overhead, both memory and CPU wise maintaining the LRUs, etc) So uh, yeah.... I don't get your motivation. On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Dan Simoes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm curious as to what results people have had with the block device driver > that is in the community branch (or so I've been told). We're looking at > the Violin Memory device, primarily for DB storage, but it may have > interesting applications for memcache as well. > > Thanks. > > Dan >
