On 10/02/2014 09:22 AM, Nikolas Everett wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Ori Livneh <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Daniel Kinzler > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > We currently use memcached to share cached objects across wikis, most > importantly, entity objects (like data items). Ori suggested we > should look into > alternatives. This is what he wrote: > > [21:15] <ori> I was wondering if you think the way you use memcached > is optimal > (this sounds like a loaded question but I mean it sincerely). And if > not, I was > going to propose that you identify an optimal distributed object > store, and I > was also going to offer to help push for procurement and deployment > of such a > service on the WMF cluster. > [21:17] <ori> memcached is a bit of a black box. it is very > difficult to get > comprehensible metrics about how much space and bandwidth you're > utilizing, > especially when your data is mixed up with everything else that goes > into memcached > [21:18] <ori> and the fact that you're serializing objects using php > serialize() > rather than simple values makes it even harder, because it means > that you can > only really poke around from php with wikidata code available > > > The other major problem with memcache is that it doesn't support complex > data structures like lists, queues, sets, or maps, so when you want to > do things like, say, push or pop an item from a queue, you end up having > to retrieve the entire collection, unserialize it, manipulate it > locally, re-serialize it, and transmit it back in its entirety. > > > > Use more Redis maybe?
Or use actual storage. _______________________________________________ Wikidata-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
