Hi Marc,
Marc Bollinger wrote:
Just curious, Northscale guys: how stable would you consider the build
on your website currently (e.g. are you using it in production, or
would you recommend using it in production)?
There will be a release which we consider thoroughly tested and ready
for any production environment. As far as whether the build which is
there is ready for your production environment, that varies.
Except for an issue that appears to be related to dynamic linking
restrictions on Microsoft's Azure, we aren't aware of any outstanding
issues. We haven't encountered any stability or functional issues, and
haven't had any reports of any yet.
There are a number of people with it deployed in developer environments,
more on desktops, and we've not heard of any issues there. I'm pretty
sure there's at least one deployment someone considers "production",
though that designation may be applied to very different deployments.
In the mean time, if you have any feedback, we'd love to hear about it.
Thanks!
- Matt
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Patrick Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi there again!
The updated, tested binary is
http://downloads.northscale.com/memcached-win32-1.4.4-54-g136cb6e.zip
regards,
Patrick
nkranes wrote:
I'm getting an Access Denied error.
On Jan 12, 2:48 pm, Patrick Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi there!
I built a new binary that you can try out if you like at :
http://downloads.northscale.com/memcached-win32-1.4.4-53-g0b7694c.zip
We're in the process of testing this right now, but if you want to give
it a shot, please feel free!
--Patrick
nkranes wrote:
I am using the Windows version of memcached 1.2.5 in production
without issue. I am attempting to upgrade to 1.4.4 (from
http://labs.northscale.com/memcached-packages/) to take advantage of
the configurable item size limitation. Whenever I try to store an
item > 1MB I get the following error:
Assertion failed: it->nbytes < (1024 * 1024), file items.c, line
284
The line of code in items.c is:
assert(it->nbytes < (1024 * 1024)); /* 1MB max size */
So how could this possibly work? I can remove that assertion, but
was
curious to see if anyone knew why it was there considering the item
limit *should* now be configurable.
Thanks!
