Excellent Advice Dormando. Thank you. ~@
On Nov 3, 2:14 pm, dormando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Use threaded mode... don't use more threads than you have CPU's. > > ... otherwise it should *work* fine. There're benefits to splitting the > instances up if you were logically splitting the types of items stored > into different sub-pools (optimized by size, data access, etc). If you'd > be addressing it as one large pool anyway, use larger instances in order > to make multiget more efficient. > > -Dormando > > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Andy Hawkins wrote: > > > 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
