> -----Original Message----- > From: Lars Balker Rasmussen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:35 PM > To: The elegant MVC web framework > Subject: Re: [Catalyst] Distributed session storage problems/questions > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:08:08PM -0500, Matt Pitts wrote: > > 1. What is the acceptable way to use memcached for session storage? > Is > > it using C::P::Session::Store::Memcached or is it > > C::P::Session::Store::Cache in conjunction with > C::P::Cache::Memcached? > > Well, either, really, they do much the same thing. I wrote > CPS::Store::Cache > to avoid the silliness of having two connections to memcached per > backend, > using two different Cache:: modules. > > So, if you have the cache working, it should be very easy to set up > sessions. > > > 2. Is memcached even a "good" way to store sessions? DBIC seems to be > a > > popular option, but I figured memcached's considerable speed would > make > > it the preferred choice. > > How important are sessions to you? If dropping a session once in a > bluemoon > is acceptable, memcached is perfectly fine. In fact, the memcached > process > is about as stable as the rest of the machine it runs on, which should > hopefully be very stable. > > > 3. When using memcached to store sessions, is it OK to have more than > > one backend? > > YES! Definitely. Silly not to. > > > At first I didn't think anything about adding another > > backend, but then I thought that the 2 memcached instances wouldn't > have > > the same set of data which would cause problems with sessions, unless > of > > course the session writes get distributed to all the backends. I've > > looked into the source of C::P::Session::Store::Memcached, > > Cache::Memcached::Managed and Cache::Memcached and cannot tell if the > > writes are spread across all backends. Does anyone know the answer to > > this? > > As long as you specify the servers in the same order on all memcached- > clients, they will hash the keys the exact same way, and a set() on > server B will cause a get() on server A to just work(tm). > > > 4. Is it just crazy to run a load balanced setup without some type of > > sticky session setup on the proxy? If so, any implementations of this > > using Apache 2.x mod_proxy(_balancer) as the frontend would be > greatly > > appreciated. > > Sticky sessions are annoying. > -- > Lars Balker Rasmussen > Consult::Perl > > _______________________________________________ > List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk > Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst > Searchable archive: http://www.mail- > archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ > Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
This is very, very helpful information. Much thanks. v/r -matt pitts _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/