Wait, what does that even mean when it comes to a LRU cache? It's a cache, if one of the servers in your cluster goes down, you'll get a slightly lower hitrate, but from some sort of systems perspective, you have 100% uptime?
/Henrik On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 21:40, Josef Finsel <[email protected]> wrote: > If you *really *need high availability *and* you can run Microsoft > products, check out Velocity. It's supposed to be a cache but it supports > High Availability, among other things. > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Tzury Bar Yochay > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> > If persistence is important, that is the right approach. We use >> > memcache for sessions at dealnews, but they are not ecommerce related or >> > mission critical information. It's not worth the DB write for us. >> >> High availability is the most important thing for us. Not persistence. >> If memcached is not the solution can anyone point out about other >> possible solutions? >> What would be the best way to have a session saved in more than one >> server? >> > > > > -- > "If you see a whole thing - it seems that it's always beautiful. Planets, > lives... But up close a world's all dirt and rocks. And day to day, life's a > hard job, you get tired, you lose the pattern." > Ursula K. Le Guin > > http://www.finsel.com/words,-words,-words.aspx (My blog) - > http://www.finsel.com/photo-gallery.aspx (My Photogallery) - > http://www.reluctantdba.com/dbas-and-programmers/blog.aspx (My > Professional Blog) >
