Re: memcache and perl question

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Joseph Norris wrote: > process 1 -> set($tag1,$hash);data unique to process 1 > process 1 -> get($tag1,$hash); > process 2 -> set ($tag2,$hash); data unique to process 2 > process 2 -> get($tag2,$hash); > I'm not sure what you're

Re: memcache and perl question

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Joseph Norris wrote: > if I set a tag to a value of a hash: > > $self->{cache}->set('tag',$hash); > > is the hash ref set in memcache that will point back to my hash or do I > have to actually have a %hash to be used in >

Re: memcached on systems with small RAM

You might want to look at alternatives in that kind of setup. For example, BerkeleyDB is quite a bit faster than memcached when your cache is just on one local system. The advantages of memcached come into play when you have a large cache across multiple machines. - Perrin On Mon, Apr 27, 2015

Re: memcached on systems with small RAM

of items in memcache Thanks for the tip, I definitely will consider it! Hans On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Perrin Harkins phark...@gmail.com wrote: You might want to look at alternatives in that kind of setup. For example, BerkeleyDB is quite a bit faster than memcached when your cache

Re: Interaction with ORM software

Hi Ted, DBIx::DataModel doesn't use memcached and isn't really related to it. You can certainly store things in memcached yourself, but your DBIx::DataModel won't know anything about it. You'd have to add a caching layer on top yourself. If having that built into your ORM is important to you,

Re: Questions about memcached in general and failover

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:09 AM, SAE simsimil...@googlemail.com wrote: But as explained above. If one of the memcached servers goes down. Some users experience the problem, that they not only get logged out but also have problems browsing the site at all or logging back in. Every page needs

Re: Questions about memcached in general and failover

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: If you are going to be stuck with this restriction - and have to build your own fail-over, is there any advantage to using memcache compared to redis with its much larger feature set? I agree. If you need durability

Re: Algorithm for automatic cache invalidation

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Jakub Łopuszański qbo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I’d like to share with you an algorithm for cache invalidation that I’ve came up with, and successfully implemented in a real world application. This may be a silly question, but have you benchmarked your cached

Re: Compare with SQLite?

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Eric Bergen eric.ber...@gmail.com wrote: Just because they can both do the same basic functionality (store/retrieve a value) doesn't make them a substitute for each other or worth comparing. In addition, I would point out that SQLite is significantly slower

Re: Compare with SQLite?

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Dustin dsalli...@gmail.com wrote:  This is quite off-topic, but that's not true unless you configure one worse than the other and find filesystems and IO systems that don't work as well.  For example:  http://skitch.com/dlsspy/nh2qb/kvtest-results-on-linode

Re: unsubscribe

Hey gmail users, if you click on the show details link in gmail it will give you a link to unsubscribe. For anyone not on gmail, the mail's headers include the following: List-Unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/memcached/subscribe?hl=en,

Re: memcached not freeing up ram?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Roch Delsalle rdelsa...@gmail.com wrote: yes but if for instance I'm building dynamic SQL queries at somes point the memory usage will keep growing even if the data is released. How would that happen? It just drops old data and replaces it with your new stuff.

Re: memcached not freeing up ram?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Dustin dsalli...@gmail.com wrote:  It doesn't try very hard to reuse memory when it hasn't allocated as much as you've given it. Sure, and I'm guessing it's not religious about making sure don't go over the limit even a fraction, but there should be no

Re: memcached not freeing up ram?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Roch Delsalle rdelsa...@gmail.com wrote: what happens when it's full ? It silently drops data. This is one of the reasons people say not to use it as a database. - Perrin

Re: Memcache with UNIX socket.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Henrik Schröder skro...@gmail.com wrote: I should also add that although in-process caches are the fastest, memcached is still much, much faster than your average database. It's been a little while, but when I compared connections to a local MySQL (using Unix

Re: memcached vs. file-based caching

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Jeremy Dunck jdu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Xaxo idio...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 23, 4:21 pm, Jeremy Dunck jdu...@gmail.com wrote: In general, file-based makes sense if: * memory is at a premium * latency to other nodes is high