I wrote a rant on this a while ago: http://dormando.livejournal.com/495593.html
If you really must do it, keep a super careful eye on your eviction rate... but I believe whatever session handler you're using should use the design pattern I describe in this post, if it's not already. -Dormando On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, TheJonathan wrote: > > I'm using memcached (1.2.6) combined with a .NET session provider > (http://www.codeplex.com/memcachedproviders/Release/ > ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=10468) to store sessions on my site. I > currently have the database backup feature turned off, so the sessions > exist only in memcached. > > Sessions are used on my site to hold login credentials across load- > balanced servers. In times of peak traffic, there's obviously a lot > of sessions being created constantly (~1% for logged-in users, 99% > anonymous) so I'm trying to cut down on database traffic by getting > those completely out of the database. From the docs, it looks like > when memcached fills up, it starts dumping key-values based on usage, > with high-use items having a higher chance of staying in memory > longer. Given that that's the case, can I be reasonably sure that the > 1% of my sessions/cache that are being used by active users (POSTing > back often) will last in memcached if it reaches capacity? > > More generally, is it "safe" for me to keep those sessions in > memcached only? I don't want my users to start getting logged out > constantly because the site is getting hammered. Does anyone else do > this? How has it worked out? > > Thanks for everyone's help so far in this group! > > --Jonathan >
