Den 2015-12-07 kl. 04:48, skrev Mike Frysinger:
> On 02 Dec 2015 20:16, Pierre Tardy wrote:
>>> i don't think getting rid out of the fs makes sense, but having memcache
>>> be available dynamically as an additional layer sounds fine..
>>
>> It does make a lot of sense for me as I have a high perfor
On 02 Dec 2015 20:16, Pierre Tardy wrote:
> > i don't think getting rid out of the fs makes sense, but having memcache
> > be available dynamically as an additional layer sounds fine.
>
> It does make a lot of sense for me as I have a high performance network,
> which is faster than local harddriv
Pierre Tardy wrote:
>> Here is such an attempt, to keep *both* features available:
>> https://github.com/itensionanders/ccache/tree/memcached-only
>
> I like it very much. I think it adds great value for ccache, and to my
> old memcached-only attempt.
Yeah, if it doesn't bloat the code ba
Hi,
I like it very much. I think it adds great value for ccache, and to my old
memcached-only attempt.
I did not realize the use for moxi also as a connection "keep-alive"
mechanism, and a way to hide the syn-ack latency overhead. I think this is
what you mean by "avoid some of the network overhe
