On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Kiran Kumar <krn1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks , let me explain my architecture more clearly
>
> you misunderstand how memcached works. It doesn't front-end the
> database servers like you think it does. It works like this:
>
> Memcache1 Memcache2
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> \ /
> MySQL Master
> MySQL Slave
>
> There is NO replication between Memcache1 and Memcache2 because they
> do not cache the same data. Memcache1 caches 50% of the data and
> Memcache2 caches the other 50% of the data. There is no data overlap
> so no synchronization is necessary.
>
> If either memcached server fails, the application requesting the data
> should "fall through" and hit the database server(s) directly.
>
> Do you understand now?
That description is correct, but it doesn't explain why your 2
applications wouldn't work the way you want in this configuration or
why you would want separate independent servers for each application.
Being able to distribute the cache over multiple servers is the main
reason people would use memcache.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
