Re: With latest versions, can I have just one cache to store small objects (several tens of bytes) and large objects (~20MiB) together?

> > No, i'm not talking about performance trouble with 63 slab classes (and I > think I mistook that -- it should be 62 per PR 97). I'm talking about that in > old versions when we could have two hundred classes, which I believed could > result in memory inefficiency. > > (and in old versions if

Re: With latest versions, can I have just one cache to store small objects (several tens of bytes) and large objects (~20MiB) together?

responses inline. On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, Min-Zhong "John" Lu wrote: > Hi again, > > When I was on my previous topic, I came to realize this question might be > asked too. > > Background story: > I have employed memcached around its 1.4.x-ish version. And I've always had a > need to store objects

With latest versions, can I have just one cache to store small objects (several tens of bytes) and large objects (~20MiB) together?

Hi again, When I was on my previous topic , I came to realize this question might be asked too. *Background story:* I have employed memcached around its 1.4.x-ish version. And I've always had a need to store objects larger than