On May 28, 11:51 pm, Ved <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > I have a webpage in which I read a text file for processing. My > benchmark (ab) results show a much higher request / second than > contents stored and accessed using memcached. And also the number of > failed request is 0 when I am using disk IO where as when I am using > memcached the number keeps going higher. What could be the possible > reasons for memory IO being slower than disk IO, and the failed > requests.
If you're getting errors, you're likely doing something wrong. If you're doing something wrong, you're not likely getting the performance you could be getting. And, as was mentioned, if you're trying to see if memcached will outrun a single machine's filesystem cache, you'll be disappointed. However, if you add lots of files, lots of machines *and* try to change some of that data, then you'll start to see the benefits.
