On 2/13/08, Per Jessen <per@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ah, but each server will only have what it needs for its clients. So if > you've got say 2000 clients spread over 10 servers, each server will > have the data relevant for its 200 clients. And there is no need for > network access everytime you reach for a cached object. (only if you > don't find it in cache). eh. seems like the way of the future is distributed, not silo'ed. computer components will fail (come on, hard drive specs are measured by how often it fails, how's that for a metric) in your situation, all the clients from B would migrate to A and C, and all the data would be re-cached again... i don't know, on paper it probably consumes more memory. i guess we'll just disagree here, i like shared nothing style distribution, and something about keeping servers as islands conflicts with that to me. from what everyone seems to find is that memcached's additional network access is pretty much trivial. > Yeah, you mentioned that before. The computer is a concept from the > early 1940s - but it's still holding up :-) touche! -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
