Jeff McCarrell wrote: > re: contention for memcache > Well, we don't have a very standard kind of web app. > The data show that running 8 memcaches is better for us than 1: > > http://www.emptech.com/mc/image003.png
No no, I believe you see benefit when doing so :) I'm just not positive something else isn't going on here :) I've yet to see a single instance host actually overpower a memcached instance and not have it be some weirdo bug. It might be those multiget's, I guess. > The graph shows the avg time to process the complete request. > The X axis shows concurrent streams of requests being sent to apache. > Each request makes several to small tens of memcache gets, and 1 multi-get. > My next set of tests will compare 8 vs 16 memcaches and scale up the number > of concurrent requests. > > re: localhost:12211 vs unix domain sockets > Um, yes, I can test tcp sockets vs. unix domain sockets if there is a good > reason to. My belief is that unix domain sockets are the fastest in > general; is there something specific to memcache that suggests otherwise? They're actually the same speed on linux these days, or thereabouts. Was curious to rule it out, is all. > re: multi-threaded memcache > I read about multi-threaded mc with interest. > In general, I'm leery of threading, but I would be willing to look further > into it with a little encouragement. :-) > We are running LAMP on linux 2.6 64-bit where the p is perl 5.8.5. > Is there a consensus view that memcache threading works well on that > platform? Threaded mode is the new default. It works well enough for most of us. Should be more (memory) efficient for you than multiple independent caches. -Dormando
