Thanks , let me explain my architecture more clearly
you misunderstand how memcached works. It doesn't front-end the
database servers like you think it does. It works like this:
Memcache1 Memcache2
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
MySQL Master
MySQL Slave
There is NO replication between Memcache1 and Memcache2 because they
do not cache the same data. Memcache1 caches 50% of the data and
Memcache2 caches the other 50% of the data. There is no data overlap
so no synchronization is necessary.
If either memcached server fails, the application requesting the data
should "fall through" and hit the database server(s) directly.
Do you understand now?
On Tuesday, 9 October 2012 18:48:28 UTC+5:30, Henrik Schröder wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Kiran Kumar <[email protected]<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>
>> I have got two applications running , both of them got dedicated one each
>> instance of Memcache server to it .
>>
>
> That's a pretty weird setup. Why don't you pool both those servers into a
> single cluster, and have both apps use both servers?
>
>
> /Henrik
>
