On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:52 AM, SimonT <[email protected]> wrote: > it seems that > there are arguments for file-based solution over memcached in terms of > speed when the caching done is per node (as we do currently). For > example:
File-based makes sense per-node if the majority of per-node cache is not redundant. In general, file-based makes sense if: * memory is at a premium * latency to other nodes is high * shared access to specific keys is easily partitioned to nodes * disk bandwidth dwarfs cache bandwidth ... > Anybody care to comment? In a high concurrency situation, does > memcached perform comparitively better? Are there any other factors we > should be considering? If you have a lot of writes, disk is going to bottleneck before memory/network.
