Thanks Perrin,
it's definitely an alternative!
Hans
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Perrin Harkins phark...@gmail.com wrote:
It does write to disk, so maybe it's not appropriate for your use. It is
widely used in embedded systems though.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Hans Kramer
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
Doesn't BerkelyDB write to disk? (of course I could use a tmpfs.. hmmm )
And I us the auto expire 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
It does write to disk, so maybe it's not appropriate for your use. It is
widely used in embedded systems though.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Hans Kramer jlam.kra...@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't BerkelyDB write to disk? (of course I could use a tmpfs.. hmmm
)
And I us the auto expire of
Thanks, I will look into that.
Hans
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:24 AM, dormando dorma...@rydia.net wrote:
You'll run into a few problems... -m 1 won't work the way you think since
it'll force-allocate one slab page per slab class. we don't have a
fallback mode to cut that down.
We also don't
Hi,
I am using memcached on a system with very modest RAM: 64Mb to be precise
(an Artila Matrix 504).
I have specified -M 1 -t 1 to reduce the memory allocated by memcached.
Now RSS is always modest and around an explainable value, however, VSZ is
at least 20Mb and with every
thread I add VSZ
