The only downside I've had with trying to use the Memcached extension over the Memcache is with RedHat Machines and a hand compiled build of libmemcached, as it requires a lot more up to date dependencies then what are in the RedHat Repos. Other then that I would suggest it as a great alternative to the Memcache Client.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Don MacAskill <[email protected]> wrote: > > FWIW, we've found the memcached PECL extension to be much more reliable > than the memcache extension. > > http://pecl.php.net/package/memcached > > Don > > On 1/4/10 12:46 PM, Brian Moon wrote: >> The bigger problem was that the sets were simply not working in some >> cases. We have downgraded and all has been well for 3 days. 3.0.5 just >> does not save data and does not error out when it does not save data. >> >> Brian. >> -------- >> http://brian.moonspot.net/ >> >> On 1/4/10 2:43 PM, NICK VERBECK wrote: >>> The PECL Memcache Client used to have a constant problem with >>> consistent hashing of keys leading to multi copies or out of date >>> copies on Memcached Servers. They appear to have fixed some of these >>> problems in 3.0.4. Which I would guess would lead 2.2.5 to produce >>> different hashes then 3.0.4+. If you can I would upgrade all machines >>> to use the same client. Making sure 1st that this doesn't break >>> anything else with your code. As I've seen problems with caching >>> un/serializing classes between the different versions of the client. >>> Otherwise stick with you current 2.2.5 install. >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Brian Moon<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> We accidentally got 3.0.5 onto a set of our servers. We have seen some >>>> really odd behavior. It would seem we have some failing sets, but the >>>> method never returns false. But, pulling the data back out on the >>>> next run >>>> of the script (not immediately, could be minutes apart) yields old data. >>>> >>>> Also, it would seem the servers are using a different hashing >>>> algorithm than >>>> ones running 2.2.5. No options are set to have it use consistent >>>> hashing. >>>> We use traditional hashing. But, getting from a server running >>>> 2.2.5 does >>>> not yield the same data as the servers running 3.0.5. >>>> >>>> We are downgrading for now as these are production systems. If there is >>>> anything we can do to debug this, let me know. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Brian. >>>> -------- >>>> http://brian.moonspot.net/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- Nick Verbeck - NerdyNick ---------------------------------------------------- NerdyNick.com SkeletalDesign.com VivaLaOpenSource.com Coloco.ubuntu-rocks.org
