No. That does not pre-allocate the full buffer. Otherwise memcached servers wouldn't be able to hold more than 100-200 connections open at once. I've seen servers run 80,000+ just fine.
Don't guess. On Sun, 28 Jul 2013, Rohit Karlupia wrote: > It might have something to do with MAX_SENDBUF_SIZE in memcached.h Memcached > tries to set this value to about 256 MB per socket and if that > succeeds, it obviously limits the number of concurrent connections you can > have. On the other side, it helps in processing large multi-get > requests. I am sure if you decrease this value, memcached would not have much > problem handling large concurrent connections, except multi-gets will > become slightly slower. > > thanks, > rohitk > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:31 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. > > > > -- --- 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.
