Hi Matthew,

Kinda derailing here, but are you only going to run memcached on that
server? If so, you really do not need the CPU power, spend the money on RAM
instead.


/Henrik Schröder

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Drayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>   So, most likely our official deployment will be to a 64bit Linux machine
> which would initially have 2GB of RAM and two monster CPUs.  If situation #2
> isn't an issue, would it be best to run a single instance of Memcached, or
> split the RAM into two instances?
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Stephen Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:26 PM
> *To:* Matthew Drayer
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
>
>
>
> I think that CPU is rarely why people do this. From what I've seen and read
> there are a few common cases:
>
>
>
> 1. You have 384mb on one machine and 128mb on another available. You make 4
> instances so their eviction pattern is similar and the client can treat them
> as identical, and your expected behavior for them will be similar, and write
> across them equally without a 384mb <-> 128mb pair of server causing wierd
> imbalances. The clients that I have seen don't take cache size into account
> when considering which instance to use.
>
>
>
> 2. You have a situation where you store items with no delete time (they
> live for ever), but you have limited memory. your no delete time items are
> expensive to recreate. You also have alot of less expensive items to
> recreate that may lead to your expensive ones being evicted. You use one
> instance sized for the items that live forever and another for the ongoing
> "evictable" items.
>
>
>
> I'm sure others have some use cases, but those are the two I've seen
> mentioned commonly.
>
>
>
> -Stephen
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Matthew Drayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> Probably not at such a low level, no J  but, this was more for a
> proof-of-concept to show my team how it might work.  I assume we'll only
> distribute out if we find we're pushing the limits of RAM or CPU
> utilization.
>
>
>
> Matt
>

Reply via email to