it is, however, possible to support "replication" at the client level, if a bit out of band for memcached. we (Fotolog), for example, at one point wrote our own client that would set data in multiple servers and then get from only one of them. it was a read-heavy environment with a small dataset that easily fit completely into RAM on each server, so it actually worked. not saying that it is a good idea, just that as possible.
anyway, it has since been replaced in our system with TokyoTyrant, which solved the problem much better for us... and it (or something similar) very well might in this case as well. awl On Mar 8, 2011 3:01 PM, "Les Mikesell" <lesmikes...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/8/2011 1:40 PM, Evil Boy 4 Life wrote: >> Thanks guys, I turned off the failover in the client... >> In fact, I didn't know that there are several .net clients and now I >> get confused, because I don't know which one is better (now I use >> memcacheddotnet) >> Do you know if one of the .net clients support replication in any way? > > Memcache isn't supposed to do replication - it's a cache that you should > be able to replenish from the real data source. What happens when one > server fails depends on the client hash mechanism. Some people want the > load to be rebalanced evenly over the remaining servers, some don't. > Either way, the next attempt to use a failed server should detect it is > down and retrieve the data from the backing DB. > > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikes...@gmail.com > >
