Mea Culpa. I was confusing memcached with mmap. I did not realize the original writer was referring to danga's memcached, which is not only distributed, but distribution is its focus!
Cheers, Rob -----Original Message----- From: A. Pagaltzis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:23 AM To: catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Subject: [Catalyst] Re: Hypothetical Site and Scalability Planning * Robert Mah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-28 15:00]: > Memcached is not distributed. What are you talking about? > Thus, you can't support distributed session state with it. Well, you can't put sessions in it because it doesn't guarantee that things you put in it will stay in it (it's a cache, not a persistence layer), but that has nothing to do with what you're saying. > Having only one server is obviously bad from a scalability and > reliability point of view. Not sure, again, what you are talking about. In May this year Facebook reported that their memcached installation comprises about 200 16GB 4-core AMD64 servers: <http://lists.danga.com/pipermail/memcached/2007-May/004098.html> Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/> _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
