Comment #4 on issue 3 by dsallings: Textual delete command w/ expire time
noreply in binary protocol version
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=3
I've pushed a branch for this (finally... this is an old one).
--
You received this message because you are listed in the
Updates:
Status: Started
Comment #2 on issue 54 by dsallings: init script missing LSB section
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=54
I pushed a branch with Monty's change. The other change requires patching
files that
are not in the distribution (and sounds like a
Updates:
Status: Started
Comment #1 on issue 56 by dsallings: Minimum slab size is particular for
growth factor of 2
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=56
I agree. This is entirely unexpected behavior and the history doesn't tell
us why
someone made it a special
Updates:
Status: Invalid
Comment #9 on issue 62 by dsallings: Patch: connection queue simplification
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=62
I don't think there's a bug here. This looks like something interesting
could come
out of it, but there are a lot of things to
Comment #4 on issue 67 by dsallings: TCP/UDP ports need to follow unless
explicitly told not to
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=67
mdounin -- I do like this idea. We had this discussion in an email thread
and it
turned into a bikeshed. No two participants so far
Updates:
Status: Started
Comment #2 on issue 68 by dsallings: incr/decr resize corruption
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=68
I wrote a test that confirms that resizing itself does not cause corruption.
Inspection of the current code doesn't show how this would be
Yo,
I couldn't sleep, so:
http://github.com/dormando/damemtop
(or: http://consoleninja.net/code/memcached/damemtop-0.1.tar.gz)
Early release of a utility I've been working on in the last few days. Yes,
sorry, I'm aware this makes /four/ memcached top programs. So, I had to
make mine awesome.
On Oct 23, 9:36 pm, dormando dorma...@rydia.net wrote:
Try it without the '0' in there. The delete expiration was (the only?)
incompatible change from 1.2.8 to 1.4.0. It's gone now.
What was the reason to *break* the protocol then? Couldn't memcached
just ignore the expiration time here?
kroki wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:10 pm, dormando dorma...@rydia.net wrote:
The reason was that nobody was using that extra parameter and the
developers wanted to remove it. Also, despite having *a year's*
worth of releases and prodding on the mailing list for client authors to
test, this is the
On Oct 29, 3:47 pm, Trond Norbye trond.nor...@sun.com wrote:
I think it is a lot better that the server
sends back an error message and let the client handle that instead.
Handle... how? What are your suggestions on how to support this in
clients?
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #3 on issue 54 by trond.norbye: init script missing LSB section
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=54
Pushed
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
On Oct 29, 4:00 pm, kroki tomash.brec...@gmail.com wrote:
Handle... how? What are your suggestions on how to support this in
clients?
Note that even Brian's libmemcached fails to support this protocol
change. From libmemcached-0.34:
if (expiration)
send_length= (size_t)
kroki wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:47 pm, Trond Norbye trond.nor...@sun.com wrote:
I think it is a lot better that the server
sends back an error message and let the client handle that instead.
Handle... how? What are your suggestions on how to support this in
clients?
Clients should
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #3 on issue 68 by trond.norbye: incr/decr resize corruption
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=68
I'll close the bug for now, but feel free to reopen the bug if you can
reproduce the
bug with 1.4.2 or newer.
--
You received this
Comment #2 on issue 57 by trond.norbye: Second biggest slabclass is always
less than half the biggest
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=57
The lru test fails with your patch
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or
Comment #2 on issue 56 by trond.norbye: Minimum slab size is particular for
growth factor of 2
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=56
LRU test fails with this patch
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you
Just got this running on my box pointing at all our servers, so far
it's looking good! The only hiccup for me was that it expected the
yaml file to be in /etc and I was just editing it in place. Paying
attention to the error message made it pretty obvious what I did wrong
though.
Jay
dormando
Comment #1 on issue 104 by nerdynick: stats bug for cmd_get
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=104
I can confirm the reproduction of this with 1.4.2 and Ubuntu 8.04. I tried
this also
with 1 thread and 4 threads. Producing the same results.
Sample data was 99 inserts 149
Comment #3 on issue 57 by dsallings: Second biggest slabclass is always
less than half the biggest
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=57
I noticed that last night. Probably should've updated the bug to avoid
having you
waste time on it. :/
I think it's a bug in the
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #3 on issue 56 by dsallings: Minimum slab size is particular for
growth factor of 2
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=56
I think you may have been looking at something including 57. No tests fail
with this
(just ran it locally and
Updates:
Owner: trond.norbye
Comment #1 on issue 69 by dsallings: DTrace probes only fire on deletes
which delete things, not those that don't
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=69
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #7 on issue 3 by trond.norbye: Textual delete command w/ expire
time noreply in binary protocol version
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=3
(No comment was entered for this change.)
--
You received this message because you are
Updates:
Status: Invalid
Comment #2 on issue 69 by trond.norbye: DTrace probes only fire on deletes
which delete things, not those that don't
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=69
The probe is only defined to trigger upon success... if you need to figure
out if it
Updates:
Status: Started
Owner: trond.norbye
Comment #2 on issue 104 by trond.norbye: stats bug for cmd_get
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=104
Patch at: http://github.com/trondn/memcached/tree/issue_104
--
You received this message because you are listed
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #3 on issue 104 by dsallings: stats bug for cmd_get
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=104
Thanks, Trond.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #3 on issue 90 by trond.norbye: RFE: generic config parser
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=90
Pushed to the engine branch.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you
Hey,
We're doing a bunch of bug fixin' and issue killin' in advance of an
early release of 1.4.3-rc1, which is scheduled for this saturday, october
31st (ooh spooky!). 1.4.3-final will be out a week after that, possibly
earlier.
Apologies for the issue spam, please bear with us for two more
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #4 on issue 57 by dorma...@rydia.net: Second biggest slabclass is
always less than half the biggest
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=57
Fixed the test and pushed this + test fix into my for_143 branch.
--
You received this message
28 matches
Mail list logo
