I'd also recommend the pecl/memcached extension over pecl/memcache. Using libmemcached it seems to be more stable than pecl/memcache. Hopefully they'll implement UDP soon.
I also use Redhat and didn't have any problems compiling libmemcached. On Jan 5, 10:22 am, 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 consistent hashing of keys leading to multi copies or out of date 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/
