memcached is extremely fast. We're using it as a second level cache, level one being in-memory cache (System.Web.Caching.Cache), and we can hardly notice any performance difference.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:06 AM, TheJonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for everyone's help! I just switched over my sessions across > the load-balanced servers to memcached and it worked perfectly. I > think the pages even load a little faster without the extra hits to > the database on every page. Can't wait to see how this affects > performance during peak traffic. > > Cheers, > Jonathan > > On Oct 30, 10:17 pm, "Clint Webb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Seconded. I would definately NOT use localhost in your configs, or your > > scripts. > > Be specific and you will save yourself some confusing problems. > > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Simone Busoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:26 PM, TheJonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > >> web1 = localhost, web2 > > >> web2 = web1, localhost > > > > > This would be better: > > > > > web1 = web1, web2 > > > web2 = web1, web2 > > > > > This way, you can keep the same configuration on all clients. > > > > -- > > "Be excellent to each other" >
