On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Yiftach Shoolman
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This makes absolutely no sense at all. If you have two servers and put a
>> webserver and memcached on both, then *half* of all cache requests will be
>> served by localhost and cause no network I/O, and half will go over the
>> network. But if you put a webserver on one and memcached on the other, then
>> *all* cache requests will be over the network, thus doubling the amount of
>> network I/O for the same amount of web requests.
>
>
> TIf you but the Memcached on a dedicated server each webserver only deals
> with the network I/O associated with its traffic, leaving the dedicated
> Memcached server to deal with all cached traffic.
Normally you would have separate front/back end networks for web and
internal traffic especially if you are scaling to a point where
either might be saturated. There should be little conflict.
> To clear it more, if you have N servers each deployed with a webservers a
> memcached server, and memcached is distributed across all servers, each
> webservers needs to deal with Memcached network I/O associated with N-1
> webservers --> we found it architecturally wrong, it actually slows down the
> entire application
If you have one memcached server and it goes down, you lose 100% of
your caching.
--
Les Mikesell
[email protected]
