thank you all. i like memcached, but would like it better when it's enough powerful. if shared memory is a lack at present, i' will try to add the function myself...haha.... thanks again!
On 11月2日, 上午3时52分, dormando <[email protected]> wrote: > > Maybe, you are right.... maybe not so. > > Please forgive my liberty, of course there are alternatives like > > redius and memcachedb which dedicate for persistent storage, of course > > there are data-disaster-tolerate designing which > > realized by libmemcached or proxy. but if we continue to work, there > > are always things that can be improved. if we can, memcached restore > > data after updating, without too much data lost, is a rather fantastic > > thing in lots of memcached fans eyes.... > > I take this as a good sign; we've been releasing often enough that people > are complaining about features again! > > I'll reiterate a point here, though: > > With redis/memcachedb, you typically have one pair of replicated > instances. Clusters are much more rare. > > With memcached, it is designed to be a non-replicated cluster. It should > affect you the same if your machine catches on fire or if you restart > memcached. If you can't handle a restart, you can't handle failure. If > you're not designing for failure, you suck. > > I'm not saying such a feature will never be added; but it won't be to > solve the issue in the way you frame it. > > -Dormando
