I see that my patch for garbage collection is still being ignored, and your post gives me some idea about why it is so. I think that RAM is a real problem, because currently (without GC) you have no clue about how much RAM you really need. So you can end up blindly buying more and more machines, which effectively means that multiget works worse and worse (client issues one big multiget but it gets split into many packets to many servers). Currently we try to get number of servers in the cluster smaller based on the reall consumption to get more from multiget feature.
So I believe that there is an important connection between RAM and speed, and this connection is number of servers in the cluster. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Guille -bisho- <[email protected]> wrote: > Many memcache users are more interested in latency than in huge > amounts of memory to cache. The drive you mention is 26µs [1] compared > with ~22.5 ns [2], 3 orders of magnitude more. > > If your application is accesing a lot of small memcache data to > process a page, the increased latency will be noticed. If it's just > for caching just full content (full pages) might be interesting, but > then you might be more interested in something like varnish that uses > regular disks and memory as cache. > > Whats is your use case? > > [1] http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodrive/?tab=specs > [2] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_random_access_memory#Memory_timing > > -- > Guille -ℬḭṩḩø- <[email protected]> > :wq >
