Re: Cache::Memcached::GetParserXS
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Jim Spath wrote: The Perl module Cache::Memcached::GetParserXS is automatically used by Cache::Memcached when it's available. But Cache::Memcached::GetParserXS is version 0.01 and was created in 2007 ... it's either perfect or has been abandoned. Is it still a good idea to install Cache::Memcached::GetParserXS? You probably want one of the libmemcached wrappers instead. It's not entirely unused but it's essentially abandonware. -Dormando
General question on upgrading spy memcached client
Hi all, I posted this to spymemcached group as well, see if I can get better luck here: I am currently running spy memcached 2.1 client and 1.2.5 server. Both run on centos (2.6.18 kernel). Looking into upgrading to 2.4.4, mainly for configurable failure mode support, which is non existant in 2.1. So far I noticed one braking interface change (MemcachedClient::setTranscoder is gone), but other than that I was wondering if there are any known issues with: 1. Running 2.1 and 2.4.4 clients side by side against the same memcached cluster (I am using default SerializingTranscoder). 2. Running 2.4.4 against 1.2.5 server (I am using ascii protocol) Thanks, Boris
Re: General question on upgrading spy memcached client
Sorry, I finally woke up and started responding to email. Summary: The upgrade breaks setTranscoder (client mutation is a bad idea) and delete with delay (which was removed from the server). Other than that, upgrade should only make things better. On Jan 5, 6:56 am, Boris boris.parten...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I posted this to spymemcached group as well, see if I can get better luck here: I am currently running spy memcached 2.1 client and 1.2.5 server. Both run on centos (2.6.18 kernel). Looking into upgrading to 2.4.4, mainly for configurable failure mode support, which is non existant in 2.1. So far I noticed one braking interface change (MemcachedClient::setTranscoder is gone), but other than that I was wondering if there are any known issues with: 1. Running 2.1 and 2.4.4 clients side by side against the same memcached cluster (I am using default SerializingTranscoder). 2. Running 2.4.4 against 1.2.5 server (I am using ascii protocol) Thanks, Boris
Re: General question on upgrading spy memcached client
Thanks again, Dustin. On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Dustin dsalli...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I finally woke up and started responding to email. Summary: The upgrade breaks setTranscoder (client mutation is a bad idea) and delete with delay (which was removed from the server). Other than that, upgrade should only make things better. On Jan 5, 6:56 am, Boris boris.parten...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I posted this to spymemcached group as well, see if I can get better luck here: I am currently running spy memcached 2.1 client and 1.2.5 server. Both run on centos (2.6.18 kernel). Looking into upgrading to 2.4.4, mainly for configurable failure mode support, which is non existant in 2.1. So far I noticed one braking interface change (MemcachedClient::setTranscoder is gone), but other than that I was wondering if there are any known issues with: 1. Running 2.1 and 2.4.4 clients side by side against the same memcached cluster (I am using default SerializingTranscoder). 2. Running 2.4.4 against 1.2.5 server (I am using ascii protocol) Thanks, Boris -- --Boris
Slabs
I am only using 2.9GB out of 8.0GB of memory. Anyway to optimized Memcache to not have so many full slabs? How can I do this? Which commands ? --- # Item_Size Max_age 1MB_pages Count Full? 1 104 B73451 s 5 46230 yes 2 136 B 572194 s 17 42630 yes 3 176 B 668 s 9 53613 yes 4 224 B 207973 s 48010 yes 5 280 B45224 s 7 26208 yes 6 352 B 2845175 s 101809 no 7 440 B 2845168 s 103680 no 8 552 B 2845165 s 204770 no 9 696 B 2845131 s 464538 no 10 872 B27845 s 25 10813 yes 11 1.1 kB 2782186 s 355571 no 12 1.3 kB 2000926 s 468203 yes 13 1.7 kB 1990130 s 73 10637 yes 14 2.1 kB 1978424 s 907931 yes 15 2.6 kB 2782185 s 936706 no 16 3.3 kB 11431 s 334697 yes 17 4.1 kB 41512 s 664962 yes 18 5.2 kB3555 s 687937 yes 19 6.4 kB 783 s 86 13588 yes 20 8.1 kB 493 s 425334 yes 2110.1 kB 10405 s 292929 yes 2212.6 kB 46890 s 281177 yes 2315.8 kB 2782150 s 24 784 no 2419.7 kB 485400 s 8306359 yes 2524.6 kB 2782185 s 6431498 no 2630.8 kB 2782158 s 720 451 no 2738.5 kB 2782185 s 899 598 no 2848.1 kB 1989233 s1561 yes 2960.2 kB 51975 s1246 21144 yes 3075.2 kB 2332533 s 6437903 no 3194.0 kB 57165 s 8798788 yes 32 117.5 kB 61044 s 6 41 yes 33 146.9 kB 381 s 1 6 yes 34 183.6 kB 99 s 1 5 yes 35 229.5 kB 56 s 1 3 yes 36 286.9 kB 55 s 1 3 yes 37 358.6 kB 192 s 3 3 yes 39 1024.0 kB 1632095 s 2 2 yes
Re: Slabs
On Jan 5, 2:04 pm, Khalid Shaikh khalid.j.sha...@gmail.com wrote: I am only using 2.9GB out of 8.0GB of memory. Anyway to optimized Memcache to not have so many full slabs? How can I do this? Which commands ? What tool are you looking at? Are you able to see large numbers of (early) evictions? Is there a particular performance issue you're running into?
Re: Slabs
test
memcached and access control
Hello, I could find the following entry in the FAQ. http://code.google.com/p/memcached/wiki/FAQ | * How does memcached's authentication mechanisms work? | | It doesn't! Memcached is the soft, doughy underbelly of your application. | Part of what makes the clients and server lightweight is the complete lack | of authentication. New connections are fast, and server configuration is | nonexistent. But the development roadmap says as follows: http://code.google.com/p/memcached/wiki/DevelopmentRoadmap | * Development Branch: 1.5 | - protocol extension support | think mod_auth for type of mechanism to add to core | ^^^ Amazing! Is these any design proposals? Or, could you introduce me who is working on this efforts? I've worked on development of secure web application platform using SELinux for a few years. Nowadays, memcached becomes a significant facility for various kind of web applications, so we cannot ignore access controls on the key-value store shared by multiple web applications. So, I'm interested in the description on the roadmap, and looking for more detailed information about this project. Thanks, -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com
Re: memcached and access control
On Jan 5, 10:06 pm, KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote: Is these any design proposals? Or, could you introduce me who is working on this efforts? I've worked on development of secure web application platform using SELinux for a few years. Nowadays, memcached becomes a significant facility for various kind of web applications, so we cannot ignore access controls on the key-value store shared by multiple web applications. So, I'm interested in the description on the roadmap, and looking for more detailed information about this project. I suppose we should update those docs a bit: http://code.google.com/p/memcached/wiki/SASLHowto Let me know how that goes.
Re: memcached and access control
(2010/01/06 15:14), Dustin wrote: On Jan 5, 10:06 pm, KaiGai Koheikai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote: Is these any design proposals? Or, could you introduce me who is working on this efforts? I've worked on development of secure web application platform using SELinux for a few years. Nowadays, memcached becomes a significant facility for various kind of web applications, so we cannot ignore access controls on the key-value store shared by multiple web applications. So, I'm interested in the description on the roadmap, and looking for more detailed information about this project. I suppose we should update those docs a bit: http://code.google.com/p/memcached/wiki/SASLHowto Let me know how that goes. Thanks for the information. Hmm, indeed, memcached already provides authentication feature, but it is different from what I would like to do. It seems to me it allows authenticated clients to access all the objects stored in this memcached server. However, we cannot control accesses on certain objects like filesystem permissions, although SASL support enables to identify the client. (BTW, access control does not always require authentication. For example, we can assume a security model based on the source ip addresses.) Is there any activity to support access controls, not only authentication? Or, is it open for new idea or proposition? :) Thanks, -- OSS Platform Development Division, NEC KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com
