It seems that the UDP binding that's on by default is causing more
confusing than it's worth (difficulty to bring up a second instance on
a different port, for example).
I propose we do one of two things:
1) Assume almost nobody uses it just disable it by default, allowing
people
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Dustin dsalli...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that the UDP binding that's on by default is causing more
confusing than it's worth (difficulty to bring up a second instance on
a different port, for example).
I propose we do one of two things:
1) Assume
On Jul 14, 7:21 am, gunyhake gunyh...@gmail.com wrote:
@tom sorry, i got the wrong switch.
@dustin I have run again without -d switch, here is the result
[root]# memcached -u nobody -m 512 -l 127.0.0.1 -U 11222
failed to listen
[root]# memcached -u root -m 512 -l 127.0.0.1 -U
I am just now implementing the memcache for my php
application .memcache is perfectly working for me .My requirement
is ,Before getting the data,weather data is changed that sql query or
not.If data is changed then i need to get the data from database else
i want to get data from cache.Is
On Jul 15, 7:40 am, Alex Ryazanov AKA the Marrch Ca'at
marrch.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all.
I've found the new stable version 1.4.0 released and wanted to know
what's new in it after 1.3.3 I'm using now. But I just can't find the
info: in the news list it's told only that Many notable
On Jul 15, 2:26 pm, a...@inne.pl a...@inne.pl wrote:
Hi there sorry if i wrote to a wrong place but could not find bug
reporting tool on the website.
Bugs go here: http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/list
I had unit tests in PHP that were sending flush_all and right after
that
Hi!
There has been a lot recently brought up about vendor interaction with
the project, and I wanted to add a few thoughts.
My personal take is that seeing vendors show up and offer support/
hardware/services is a good thing. It is a sign of both the growth and
health of the project.
Trond, any thoughts?
I'd like to double-check that there isn't a reason we can't support
preallocation without getpagesizes() before attempting to manually
patch memcache and play with our production system here.
Thanks,
Mike
On Jul 13, 8:38 pm, Mike Lambert mlamb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul
Hi Mike,
Mike Lambert wrote:
Trond, any thoughts?
Trond is actually on vacation, but I did steal a few cycles of his time
and asked about this.
I'd like to double-check that there isn't a reason we can't support
preallocation without getpagesizes() before attempting to manually
patch
