Yep, this will be a dedicated server for Memcached. It's most likely going to be a virtual server, and I think the 2xCPU / 2xGB is a standard template for our Systems group, so it's actually easier for them to deploy an instance this way. Couple clicks and it's ready to go.
________________________________ From: Henrik Schröder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:07 PM To: Matthew Drayer Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Multi-instance on Win2K3? 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 :-) 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
