> > Thanks for open sourcing this! And thanks for attempting to keep the > changes small and documenting each patch. That's a big help. > > It'll probably be a while before any of us can verify or adopt these > patches, but it's good to have them out there. I can give you some quick > feedback which will also help the process; > > Most of your changes are in the default_engine/, a large part of the point > of 1.6 is so we can "fork" this engine and modify it. At a glance, I see > that you've added the 32bit hash into the item structure. I'm sad to say > that almost all users of memcached care about its memory efficiency more > than the vertical scalability, and 4 bytes per item can be horrendous to > some workloads. > > That can probably be worked on, but to start with I would recommend you > actually fork the default_engine and port your changes into that. > > ie -> copy default_engine tree to lockscale_engine (or whatever) > -> port your patches onto that > -> isolate the patches which touch the main tree > > ... then we can decide on if we want to distribute both engines and give > users a choice, or keep one in the repo and slowly adopt the scaling > changes from one to the other (if possible). > > Thanks, > -Dormando >
Hi, Thanks for your feedback. I'll start to port the changes to a new engine as you've described. It is probable that a significant portion of the gains are realized even without storing the hash value of the item. If this is the case it would make it simpler and easier to integrate the changes into default_engine. Would you like me to experiment with this approach? Kind regards, Ripduman Sohan
