Brad Fitzpatrick (brad) wrote,
Brad Fitzpatrick

Watch me hard-core blog!

So, on September 23rd, some guy named Jonathan told some guy named John about memcached, and he wrote:

memcached + zeroconf-based formation/management features would be pretty interesting: It would be nice if the clients didn't have to hard-code the addresses of the cache nodes.
A most interesting idea, John!

But the more I think about it, nodes flickering on/off would cause buckets to change, killing cache hit rates. Or worse: netsplits, where you store a val1 in key foo, then store val2 in foo (now on a new server), that server goes down, then you retrieve foo and get val1, on the old server. Handling that would kinda suck.

I guess you could get away from the hash of hashes model (where nodes aren't buckets), and actually replicate content around, but I think that's the wrong way to go... LJ hits over 50% cache hit rate after being empty in like seconds. So maybe we shouldn't care about cache hit rates going to zero when servers go on/off-line and just worry about the netsplit problem?

My god... this is my first hard-core blogging, where I quote/link to other people. I feel so dirty.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.