Excellent, thanks for the quick reply Adam (and Dormando) and the suggestion. cc'ing the list to get this in the archive for the next guy. I've also added this to the faq:
http://www.socialtext.net/memcached/index.cgi?faq Mark. On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Adam Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It doesn't take it into account. > > You could, however, run multiple instances of the same size on one > server. Not ideal, but works. > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Mark Maunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is it sensible to have different cache sizes across multiple servers > running > > memcached. I have one machine with 16GB of memory not doing much and I > could > > use 12GB for memcached. My other servers have 2GB available for > memcached. > > Will it include memory size in it's decision on where to store stuff? Or > > does it simply load share evenly across all machines and if one out of > three > > servers runs out of memory then a third of new data won't be cached? > > > > This faq entry seems to suggest that the hashing algorithm doesn't take > into > > account how much cache is available on each server: > > > > > http://www.socialtext.net/memcached/index.cgi?faq#how_does_memcached_work > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mark. > > > > > > > > -- > awl > -- Mark Maunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://markmaunder.com/ +1-206-6978723
