On Saturday, June 16, 2012 12:08:31 AM UTC+2, Henrik Schröder wrote: > > Why don't you just take the cache misses and recreate your data from the > underlying datastore? If you are using consistent hashing and you change > your cluster slightly, you lose only a fraction of your cached values. > > > /Henrik > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Matthieu M. > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I did not find a "rename" operation as I combed the docs, which would >> have been my savior here, so I would like to know how everyone else handles >> this situation. >> >> Unfortunately I am counting on using memcached for highly volatile data with asynchronous reliable storage (I am thinking thousands to tens of thousands of writes per seconds on those simple counters), so in case of cache miss I have to wait for a while (tens of seconds to minutes) before I can reliably know that all updates were flushed to the data store and restore.
I just came over an extension to the memcached protocol today (get with lock: getl and its counterpart unlock: unl) that is experimented with and could help achieve what I want, unfortunately it might be a while before it is available in memcached core. -- Matthieu
