Uh... huh? There is no single point of failure in memcached. It is distributed in that the data is distributed across the servers. Every client knows the algorithm to find data for any key. If any server dies, you still have a cache, though your miss rate might increase slightly.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Dilip <[email protected]> wrote: > Going by that definition: > > All client server architectures are distributed. > > like ftp, ldap, sql servers are all distributed. > > As i understood, in distributed systems there is no single point of > failure. > > but in all these cases there are single point of failures. > > internet is distributed because there is no single point of failure. > > But after looking at the link > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_computing, > here client server architecture is termed as distributed. > I think the responsibility of not having single point of failure is to > have intermediary clients, which can do that. > > Now I think we can call it that way. > > On Jun 10, 9:22 pm, Les Mikesell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dilip wrote: > > > We read that memcached is "Free & open source, high-performance, > > > distributed memory object caching system" Where as "distirbuted" is > > > not part of memcached servers. We have to have some client which knows > > > about all memcached servers and uses some hash based on key to > > > determine a server. > > > > > Is My understanding correct? If it is correct, we should remove > > > "Distributed" from the above definition. > > > > The data is distributed - but the servers don't need to know anything > about > > that. Doesn't that still make it a distributed system? > > > > -- > > Les Mikesell > > [email protected] > -- awl
