On Sun, 25 Jul 2010, Jakub Łopuszański wrote:
> Thanks for an explanation. > I see that we have entirely different points of view, probably caused by > totally different identified sets of bottlenecks, different > usage, different configurations etc (I assume that you have greater > experience, since my is restricted to one company, with just 55 > memcache machines). For example you often say about the locks and CPU usage, > while we observed that (not surprisingly to us) those O(1) > operations, are relatively insignificant compared to socket operations which > take ages. > > I agree that 16 extra bytes is a serious problem though. If I had time I > would definitely try to implement a version that uses just 8 > bytes or less (for example by reimplementing TTL buckets as an array of > pointers to items hashed by item address). This was just a proof > of concept, that you can have GC in O(1), which some ppl claimed to be > difficult, which turned out to work very well for us at nk.pl. > > Sorry for tread hijacking, and all. It's not hard to make it work, it's hard to make it work for everyone. There're lots of things that I could add to memcached in a day each, but it would make it less accessable instead of more accessable at the end of the day.
