BUSTARRET, Jean-francois wrote:
I can think of two cases where multiple instances of memcached on the same
server are useful :
1/ to be able to use multiple processors without using the threaded version of
memcached (but IMHO, using a single/multi-threaded version should be better)
2/ to be able to store datatypes with incompatible lifetime/storage policies or
with specific flushing policies. ie :
- isolating a session cache from a data cache : you might not want new sessions
to kick off important (complex to generate but accessed not very often) data,
or having too many slabs for sessions when they could be of better use for data
(if your data is not of the same size than your sessions)
- being able to flush all of datatype A without touching datatype B (you can't
flush half of your cache, but you can flushall instance A without touching
instance B).
Otherwise, IMHO, having a single instance with a lot of memory makes more sense (or better, two instances on two different servers, each with a lot of memory)
What would be the best approach for 32-bit servers with 4 gigs of RAM
where each process can only access a maximum of 2 gigs (which I think
includes the code space)?
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
