http://docs.libmemcached.org/memcached_behavior_set.html#memcached_behavior_number_of_replicas
http://docs.libmemcached.org/memcached_behavior_set.html#memcached_behavior_number_of_replicas
or
http://docs.libmemcached.org/memcached_behavior_set.html#memcached_behavior_number_of_replicas
Hi All,
After some problems, i have success in compiling memcached on solaris
sparc.
libmemcached was very hard to get working too. I have a version here
with some patches to detect and implement unsuported features on
solaris like getopt_long and etc...
Now, its compiled successfuly and
Hi,
Its works for me on version 0.45 with C.
I didnt like of this behavior but its works.
The concept of master and slave dont exist. So, if its get a error
trying to send data to the hash(key)-server, its dont send data to
the others server(s).
On Mar 3, 12:09 pm, Bill Moseley
Hi Felipe,
Do note that the memcached build on Solaris works best when using Sun's
cc, not gcc. Last I checked, it was still freely available (but
required registration).
Which version of libevent did you use? Solaris 10 has libevent built in
over in the SFW repository, and that one has been
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Felipe Cerqueira skylaz...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
Its works for me on version 0.45 with C.
Well, perhaps I'm not configuring the client correctly. See below.
I didnt like of this behavior but its works.
The concept of master and slave dont exist. So, if
Hi Bill,
On Mar 3, 3:54 pm, Bill Moseley mose...@hank.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Felipe Cerqueira skylaz...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
Its works for me on version 0.45 with C.
Well, perhaps I'm not configuring the client correctly. See below.
I didnt like of this behavior
Hi Felipe,
Am 03.03.2011 um 20:01 schrieb Felipe Cerqueira:
thanks for your reply.
I'm using libevent-2.0.10-stable.
I have compiled everything on solaris 9 with gcc version 3.4.0.
Now, trying to resolv the problem, I have download from SFW
memcached-1.2.6-sol10-sparc-local.gz. Its
Hi all,
I know I'll get blasted for not googling enough, but I have a quick
question.
I was under the impression memcached servers replicated data, such that if i
have 2 servers and one machine goes down the data would all still be
available on the other machine. this with the understanding
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Roberto Spadim robe...@spadim.com.brwrote:
more here:
http://repcached.lab.klab.org/
This was the first thing that came up on google, just wanted to verify
memcached doesn't replicate out-of-the-box.
thx,
-nathan
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Roberto Spadim robe...@spadim.com.brwrote:
humm i will tell my experience
there´s two ideas
one replication (like raid1)
other load balance (like raid0 stripe)
client side can load balance like 'raid0' (i don´t know if libmemcache
have this, in php i use
Hi Nathan,
On 3/3/11 1:42 PM, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
Hi all,
I know I'll get blasted for not googling enough, but I have a quick
question.
Here's a dime. Get yourself a web browser and bring me back $0.10
change. :) (said jokingly...)
I was under the impression memcached servers
humm membase = memcache+repcache+memcachedb
http://wiki.membase.org/display/membase/Membase+for+Memcached+Users
nice =)
2011/3/3 Matt Ingenthron ingen...@cep.net:
On 3/3/11 2:13 PM, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
A friend has mentioned membase:
http://www.membase.org/
though I've hardly had a minute
Hi,
I use the .net clients and 2 servers at 2 different machines.
When one of the memcached servers is down, I try to set an item to the
cache (According the hashing algoritem of the client, this item should
stored the inactive server!) and this item get stored at the active
server.
After I set
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Felipe Cerqueira skylaz...@gmail.comwrote:
The replication only works with binary mode. Did you set it up?
Oh, no, I guess that would help. I must of missed that in the docs. I was
running Memcached 1.2.8, so I just installed 1.4.5 and enabled binary in the
Hi all,
I know I'll get blasted for not googling enough, but I have a quick question.
I was under the impression memcached servers replicated data, such that if i
have 2 servers and one machine goes down the data would all still be
available on the other machine. this with the
Hi!
On Mar 3, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Bill Moseley wrote:
But, then when I exit the program (closing the connection) the LAST key I
wrote gets written to the replicant(s).
I explained this on the libmemcached mailing list but I will comment do a short
comment on it here as well.
Libmemcached
Hi!
On Mar 3, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Felipe Cerqueira wrote:
About your question, its really wont replicate the data if fails on
first server. You can see it on the source code of libmemcached:
See: http://goo.gl/JSSro
I dont like this behaivor too.
I'd take a patch to change this behavior
17 matches
Mail list logo
