I hadn't read the paper, just the abstract of the talk at Velocity. It
read like FUD, so I wanted to confirm/deny that here. Thanks to Vladimir
for posting the link and allowing us to sort that out.
Well, there are some bottleneck. For example with UDP memcache wakes
up all childs when a
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 07:37 -0700, dormando wrote:
First, Hidden scalability gotchas - for the love of fuck, nobody gets
hit by that. Especially nobody attending velocity. I'm not even sure
facebook bothered to scale that lock.
Given the title, the overtly academic content, and the lack of
I believe the FUD you are referring to was following presentation at
Velocity
Hidden Scalability Gotchas in Memcached and Friends
http://en.oreilly.com/velocity2010/public/schedule/detail/13046
There is a link to the PDF of slides so you can see what they talked
about. Here is the short link to
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Vladimir Vuksan wrote:
I believe the FUD you are referring to was following presentation at Velocity
Hidden Scalability Gotchas in Memcached and Friends
http://en.oreilly.com/velocity2010/public/schedule/detail/13046
There is a link to the PDF of slides so you can see
hehe Oracle has Sun and they have Oracle Coherence (more fully-featured data
grid) so they have to come up with studies with lots of scary numbers to
make sure the message goes out that open source sucks and you should stay
away from it. Buy the real enterprise product today and save tomorrow ;- )
On 7/1/2010 9:37 AM, dormando wrote:
Given the title, the overtly academic content, and the lack of serious
discussion as to the application of such knowledge, we end up with stupid
threads like this. Imagine how many people are just walking away with that
poor idea of holy shit I should use
I've seen some FUD from people claiming that memcached doesn't scale
very well on multiple CPUs, which surprised me.
Is there an accepted benchmark we can use to examine performance in more
detail?
Does anybody have any testing results in that area?
While we don't have a standard set of
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:35:08AM -0700, dormando wrote:
I've seen some FUD from people claiming that memcached doesn't scale
very well on multiple CPUs, which surprised me.
Is there an accepted benchmark we can use to examine performance in more
detail?
Does anybody have any
...@rydia.net
To: memcached@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 30, 2010 11:35:08 AM
Subject: Re: Scalability and benchmarks
I've seen some FUD from people claiming that memcached doesn't scale
very well on multiple CPUs, which surprised me.
Is there an accepted benchmark we can use to examine performance
On 30-6-2010 20:35 dormando wrote:
Most of these are saying that you hit a wall scaling memcached past,
say, 300,000 requests per second on a single box. (though I think with the
latest 1.4 it's easier to hit 500,000+). Remember that 300,000 requests
per second at 1k per request is over 2.5
With what kind of boxes would that be?
With 300-500k/sec you're getting really close to lowlevel limitations of
single network interfaces. With dell 1950's (with broadcom netextreme II 5708
and dual xeon 5150) we were able to produce about 550-600,000 packets/second
with
On 6/30/2010 5:35 PM, dormando wrote:
With what kind of boxes would that be?
With 300-500k/sec you're getting really close to lowlevel limitations of
single network interfaces. With dell 1950's (with broadcom netextreme II 5708
and dual xeon 5150) we were able to produce about 550-600,000
For most hardware memcached is limited by the NIC. I'd welcome someone to
prove a simple case showing otherwise, at which time we'd prioritize an
easy fix :)
Does that mean you should use multiple NICs on the servers and spread the
clients over different networks?
It means you probably
On 1-7-2010 0:49 Les Mikesell wrote:
On 6/30/2010 5:35 PM, dormando wrote:
For most hardware memcached is limited by the NIC. I'd welcome someone to
prove a simple case showing otherwise, at which time we'd prioritize an
easy fix :)
Does that mean you should use multiple NICs on the servers
14 matches
Mail list logo
