Yes that's the point. It loses some packets then scales back. Beats having the machine drop offline.
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Roberto Spadim wrote: > check this discussion for more info about UDP pratical informations (not > theory) > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1098897/what-is-the-largest-safe-udp-packet-size-on-the-internet > http://www.29west.com/docs/THPM/packet-loss-myths.html > > check that TCP can loss packets (any protocol without RTS can): > Reality--The normal operation of TCP congestion control may cause loss > due to queue overflow. See this report for more information. Loss > rates of several percent were common under heavy congestion. > > > > 2011/2/8 Roberto Spadim <[email protected]>: > > just a obs > > hash is for server selection, a fast hash function = no problems on > > performance (low latency) > > in some libraries you can do your hash function too, read source code > > and documents of you client library (for a better help in memcached > > mail group, use memcached based libraries, try to not use independent > > libraries since you can use diferent hash algorithms and put data on > > one server and read from another = bad cache hit rate) > > > > 2011/2/8 dormando <[email protected]>: > >>> > >>> #1) Should i use consistent hashing. > >>> I am not expecting instances to go down randomly. But whenever one > >>> machine has to be taken out for maintenance etc, would like to > >>> minimize the impact. i read about a reduced performance when switched > >>> to consistent hashing. Not sure whether it is still valid. > >> > >> Er, "yes you should use it". pecl/memcache 3.0 would degrade if you used > >> it but you should never use that sfotware. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Roberto Spadim > > Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial > > > > > > -- > Roberto Spadim > Spadim Technology / SPAEmpresarial >
