Use threaded mode... don't use more threads than you have CPU's.
... otherwise it should *work* fine. There're benefits to splitting the
instances up if you were logically splitting the types of items stored
into different sub-pools (optimized by size, data access, etc). If you'd
be addressing it as one large pool anyway, use larger instances in order
to make multiget more efficient.
-Dormando
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Andy Hawkins wrote:
Currently they run across 6 machines already.
My real question is should I run multiple memcached's with smaller
memory caches on seperate ports instead of running one memcached with
a 24gig pool?
I will be doing a scheduled maintenance to upgrade the nodes and
clients so we won't see down time do to this.
~@
On Oct 31, 7:39 am, "David Stanek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Spreading across more boxes also makes you more fault tolerant. If one
or two go down your database (or other expensive resource) would still
be OK.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Stephen Johnston
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the major point of consideration is that if memcached had a "must
have" upgrade tomorrow. What would the impact of taking down one of those
24g instances to upgrade be? If that makes you cringe, then you should
probably reduce the size of each instance even if you are running just them
on the same machine.
-Stephen
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've got around 200 gigs of ram I'm running 6 nodes all set around
24gigs each.
Is this appropriate or should I cluster them out?
~@
--
Davidhttp://www.traceback.org
