Dustin, I agree that this seems to conflict with the idea of how memcache is generally used. But the suggestion your making still wouldn't guarantee that the item would stay in cache since it could be that there are no other lower priority LRU items to be dumped.
The only way to really lock something into memcached is to set up a separate server and load the important items into it and not use it for the other caches. Josef "If you see a whole thing - it seems that it's always beautiful. Planets, lives... But up close a world's all dirt and rocks. And day to day, life's a hard job, you get tired, you lose the pattern." Ursula K. Le Guin On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Dustin Sallings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMO, the idea does conflict a bit with the idea of a cache, at least as I > understand it. > > Implementation-wise, it seems like another command to flag an existing > record as one that should specify LRU priority. > > I can imagine if you have items you want to not be removed by LRU that you > perhaps also have items you consider cheaper than others and would prefer > these other items discarded before more expensive items to recreate. > > Likewise, it doesn't unreasonable to have items you want to expire at a > particular point in time, but not before it. > > If you can imagine communicating a cost of invalidation to memcached, you > could see how careful use of such a thing could potentially make for more > efficient systems. For a finite list of priorities, it could be inplemented > quite easily and efficiently. > > -- > Dustin Sallings (mobile) > > > On Jun 11, 2008, at 5:48, "Reinis Rozitis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > RR the patch you pointed to sounds exactly what I'm looking for. If you >>> would not mind posting your latest version patch please. >>> >> >> This is not my patch (all credits go to Paul G) but just a bit tweaked to >> apply for current (1.2.5) release. >> http://roze.lv/memcached-permitems.patch >> >> >> As to answering few of Brads comments: >> >> I think Paul wanted to show just some quick working concept of the feature >> which in real world situations is pretty usefull rather than push the patch >> directly into source. Ram is cheap, but in some cases you still can't deploy >> enough to satisfy all the web-coder needs so instead of cycling the cache >> all the time give some logic and decision possibilities to (client) software >> which data is more important. >> >> It sure needs love to cope with the current code-style, but the question >> is whether the current developers are fine with the idea/option at all. >> >> rr >> >>
