Not sure if that's the case. If it's repcached then you can read and write values to both nodes. So you have active-active. DRBD is a shared block device. However repcached/memcached is in memory so not sure what those 2 have to do with each other.
Op dinsdag 5 augustus 2014 18:22:19 UTC+2 schreef rspadim: > > i think repcached is used with DRBD solutions > two servers, if one server get down the other 'hot server' take the > 'cluster' ip address and start services without recreating the cache, with > a low startup time between fail and hot server start > > > 2014-08-05 12:45 GMT-03:00 PenguinWhispererThe <th3pengui...@gmail.com > <javascript:>>: > >> Hi all, >> >> I wonder what the added value for repcached is( >> http://repcached.lab.klab.org/). >> It replicates the objects to both configured nodes. So you can read the >> cached value on all nodes even if it was added through the memcached on the >> other node. >> >> In the normal memcached there is a constant hash algorithm so you will >> hit the correct server when reading a previously set value. >> When this server goes down I assume you just "cache-miss" and get your >> data directly from the database and then cache it on another memcached node? >> >> I would assume repcache would give some kind of HA however I don't see >> how this can't be accomplished by the normal memcached. >> Ok, you loose cache but it will be cached on another node again. In that >> way it actually seems like repcached adds overhead. >> >> Another thought I had is that if one very frequently executed query gets >> a hash that is on for example memcache server X that all subsequent clients >> that need the same data will also be sent to server X. So more load will go >> to that server. >> Am I thinking right here? Is that the purpose of repcached? Maybe a >> workaround could be to just create a few hashes with the same data so you >> can be sure that those will approximately be balanced over the different >> memcached servers? >> >> Note that I never used memcached/repcached but I'm trying to understand >> if we actually need this in our organisation. There seems to be an issue >> with a segmentation fault and I want to make sure I don't spend a lot of >> time while there might be a better solution. Repcached isn't maintained >> anymore either. So maybe it's better to look at a long term solution. >> >> Thanks in advance! >> >> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "memcached" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to memcached+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Roberto Spadim > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
