On Jul 23, 11:31 am, Ben Manes <[email protected]> wrote: > There are alternatives to LRU, which is generally chosen for being extremely > simple to implement, fast, and has a reasonable hit rate. The > Greedy-Dual-Size-Frequency policy may be more appropriate for memcached as it > accounts a value's weight. I doubt that there's a lot of value of changing the > current design, but there are alternatives to approaches that would need to be > considered if GC was a serious consideration.
An engine that does this would be welcome. :) A big reason storage engines were introduced a while back was so that people with different theories of operation could could implement new storage or eviction models and have them maintain relevance as the memcached core itself progresses forward. There's nobody to say you can't have your own engine for people to try out (and perhaps even have excellent luck in different environments), and if/when a universally better model arises, we can change defaults.
