On Jun 11, 2008, at 21:59, Grant Maxwell wrote:
Dustin In this particular case to do that would completely negate
the benefit of the cache because better than 99% would fail in the
cache lookup AND the database lookup. In effect we would be using
the cache as a virtual table and only refer to the database on
startup. There is method in our "madness" uhahaha. The number of
"rogue" actions requested that would be blocked may only represent
10% of our total action requests, but would reduce server load
significantly.
Sounds like a bloom filter (or a variant like a counting filter)
would help you tremendously, then.
I take the point of some folk who have suggested running a 2nd
instance of memcached and I am thinking about that. The single
downside is calculation of the memory requirement and getting it
right so that we don't lose entries and don't waste memory.
I've not heard of dynamo etc and will look into them.
AFAIK, dynamo is just a paper -- but it describes something that
sounds like the kind of thing you'd want as far as a persistent and
fault tolerant kv storage.
Perhaps we can get a counter filter backend. Toru? :)
--
Dustin Sallings
