It is in response to a relatively rare, good problem to have. Imagine you have so many processes each with a connection on so many servers that its in the 10s of thousands. Then a proxy/mux makes sense over persistent connections.
Matt On Jul 26, 2013 6:01 AM, "Ryan Chan" <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually have been using memcached for years and didn't have any problem, > but find a new memcached proxy called "twemproxy" and it said: > > - Maintains persistent server connections. > - Keeps connection count on the backend caching servers low. > > Actually what wrong with memcached on the above two points? > Anyone have experience to share? > > Thanks. > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "memcached" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
