For me incompatibility is defined as: Clients implement consistent hashing in such a way that when in a caching architecture multiple types of clients (C, PHP, Java, Python) are used, they do not agree on which key is cached in which memcached and how backups are selected. This is because clients hash function differs in implementation while fully implementing consistent hashing principles.
Does this make sense? On Nov 16, 4:53 pm, Dustin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 16, 4:42 pm, "Garth Patil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > that the consistent hashing implementation in libmemcached was > > incompatible with spymemcached (Java), and both were incompatible with > > the original ketama implementation provided by last.fm > > (http://www.last.fm/user/RJ/journal/2007/04/10/rz_libketama_-a_consist...). > > Can you give me an example of what you mean by incompatibility? I > generated a set of results with libketama and made a unit test out of > them guaranteeing that I get the same results for the same input. I > can't produce a .jar unless that's true. > > The only place where there's any incompatibility I know about is > that I don't support node weighting. Someone has put that together in > a branch on github, but I haven't put the effort into cleaning it up > enough to incorporate it into a release. Is this what you're talking > about?
