Currently they run across 6 machines already. My real question is should I run multiple memcached's with smaller memory caches on seperate ports instead of running one memcached with a 24gig pool?
I will be doing a scheduled maintenance to upgrade the nodes and clients so we won't see down time do to this. ~@ On Oct 31, 7:39 am, "David Stanek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Spreading across more boxes also makes you more fault tolerant. If one > or two go down your database (or other expensive resource) would still > be OK. > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Stephen Johnston > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the major point of consideration is that if memcached had a "must > > have" upgrade tomorrow. What would the impact of taking down one of those > > 24g instances to upgrade be? If that makes you cringe, then you should > > probably reduce the size of each instance even if you are running just them > > on the same machine. > > > -Stephen > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I've got around 200 gigs of ram I'm running 6 nodes all set around > >> 24gigs each. > > >> Is this appropriate or should I cluster them out? > > >> ~@ > > -- > Davidhttp://www.traceback.org
