I guess memcache in this scenario is being used as a runtime db... I know of a few apps doing that
On 7/1/09, Henrik Schröder <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) >> > -- -- -Syed Ali
