Hey folks,
Yes, please use persistent connections. Be wary of potential bugs causing
connections to stack up (creating too many objects, creating a new
persistent connection per pageview, etc). The PHP clients make this
relatively difficult to do but it's still possible.
Also, for note, any rece
I am now thinking of using persistent connection for connecting to memcache
server.
so that we don't have to create connection again and again, i think this
will also lower some over head of TCP/IP for local machine.
Regards,
--
===
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Stephen Johnston
wrote:
> I've seen this sentiment expressed a few times and while I agree with it for
> pure speed, there are some things to consider. One reason I can think of to
> use Memcache in this scenario is that almost all of the "in-process" caches
> for
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Henrik Schröder 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 sockets) vs. a l
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Swen Thuemmler wrote:
> I see a valid reason using memcached (not distributed) on the same
> machine: memcached is rock-solid while your garden-variety webserver
> tends to need a restart now and then - loosing all cached content, if
> you use an in-process cache.
thank you all...
now i think that using memcache might not be a big overhead.
anyways will try to benchmark the system with IPC (in process cache).
then will see what i should implement.
Regards,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Swen Thuemmler wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:56:27AM +01
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:56:27AM +0100, Henrik Schröder wrote:
> If each webserver is only going to access its own memcached server on the
> same machine, why are you even using it in the first place? Why not simply
> use an in-process cache in each webserver? That's much, much faster in your
>
Hi!
[in-process cache]
Abhinav Gupta wrote:
> Hi,
> we are using LAMP platform to develop and host our website.
>
> so, can you please tell me something related to PHP.
Have a look at APC [1]. It's an php opcode cacher and brings a data
store with it where you can place arbitrary data.
Greeti
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Abhinav Gupta <4u.abhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so i want to remove the overhead of TCP/IP from my memcache server, as it
> will decrease the time required to serve the page.
>
> one option that i can also think off is to use Cache Lite with memory based
> file syste
i benchmarked this, and after that i got to know that my memcache is
creating this overhead.
actually i tested Cache Lite (disk based caching). and in that case also
overall time for page request is almost same, although we are now doing read
and write on disk( which is slower then that of memory).
Fair enough, for some platforms an external cache might be the best
solution.
I should also add that although in-process caches are the fastest, memcached
is still much, much faster than your average database. For our website where
we use memcached in a distributed way, we can easily do a hundred
Hi,
we are using LAMP platform to develop and host our website.
so, can you please tell me something related to PHP.
Thanks,
Regards,
Abhinav Gupta
That depends completely on what platform you are using, if you're using .Net
you could take a look at System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Cache for example, I
don't know what's available in various Java frameworks, but you can make a
class that wraps a static HashMap easily and you're basically set. For
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Henrik Schröder wrote:
> If each webserver is only going to access its own memcached server on the
> same machine, why are you even using it in the first place? Why not simply
> use an in-process cache in each webserver? That's much, much faster in your
> case sin
Hi Henrik,
can you please suggest some solutions for "in-process cache", i have no as
such idea of this.
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
--
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of thei
If each webserver is only going to access its own memcached server on the
same machine, why are you even using it in the first place? Why not simply
use an in-process cache in each webserver? That's much, much faster in your
case since it has no overhead.
You should only use memcached if you want
Hello,
we are trying to use memcache for our website.
but we are using node based caching (i.e. each webserver has its own
memcache, on the same machine).
so we are facing the overhead of TCP/IP while connecting to memcache server
running on same machine.
can anyone provide help for reducing this
17 matches
Mail list logo
