thanks Henrik! That's a very good idea.
On Nov 1, 6:17 am, "Henrik Schröder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:16 PM, MP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If I were to use memcached (where memcache servers are different from > > the app servers), then on every request I'll have make multiple > > network calls (from app server to memcache servers) to fetch the > > cached data. > > There's no problem whatsoever with that approach, on our web > application,http://nonoba.com, we do between 20-50 memcached requests per > page, > depending on the page, and depending on you being logged in or not, and some > of those requests are ~50-key multi-gets. What we see is that a single > database request on a page is much slower than all those memcached requests > together. > > We try to minimize the size of the data we put in memcached though. I don't > know how large your page fragments are, but something you could experiment > with is to cache all fragments on each local webserver, and only cache a > cache-key in memcached, i.e. a two-layered cache where the items are held in > local memory, and memcache is used to synchronize these. > > /Henrik
