Sure Adam, I have 8 production servers that each have a memcache connection pool of 100 connections that round robin as requests to memcached are made. I did not want to have to worry about creating my connection objects on the fly.
In regards to spymemcached, yeah, I just started using it. Before I was using the general client that came with memcached, but saw that the spy version had some additional features. I would be quite interested in getting your feedback in regards to using the spymemcached client more efficiently. :) -Pat On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Adam Lee <a...@fotolog.biz> wrote: > I'm a little late to the party, but I've been reading the emails and > following along... > > Out of curiosity, what do you mean by this: > > I have multiple servers on the front end that each have 100 connections >> round robining to memcached. > > > I mean, I think I understand what you mean by this, but it doesn't really > make sense to me-- why does each server need 100 connections to memcached? > Beyond that, how does each server have 100 connections to memcached? You > said that you're using the spymemcached client, right? > > If you could explain exactly how your setup works and what your actual > intention was with this design, I think it'd help me a lot. I have quite a > bit of experience tuning spymemcached to do hundreds of thousands of > requests a second, so I'm hoping I can help you out quite a bit once I can > wrap my head around it. > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Patrick Santora <patwe...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I am having issues with Memcached at the moment. I have multiple >> servers on the front end that each have 100 connections round robining >> to memcached. I have 2 memcached servers, each with 512MB of ram and >> 20 threads (might be a little high) available to each. >> >> What I am seeing is that when my memcached container hits around 10MB >> of written traffic is starts to bottleneck causing my front end >> systems to slow WAY down. I've turned on verbose debugging and see no >> issues and there are no complaints on the front end stating that the >> connection clients are not able to hit memcached. >> >> Has anyone seen anything like this before? >> >> I would appreciate any feedback that could help out with this. >> >> Thanks >> -Pat >> > > > > -- > awl >
