2 ms·
Agreed that in-memory storage is by far the fastest form of storage available to a single server setup like this. However, I was thinking hypothetically if loa
by drm237 19y ago
Agreed that in-memory storage is by far the fastest form of storage available to a single server setup like this. However, I was thinking hypothetically if load was the issue, how would people scale the backend. I was curious if one option would emerge as a favorite.
I disagree that the only reason not to do it is if the data won't fit in RAM. Going to a multi-server setup has many advantages including redundancy for situations such as these, of course, at the cost of increased administration.
- mrtron 19y agoThese sort of questions have resulted in the traditional web setup you see today with a database backend for storage. Any reasonably large site will (relatively) quickly exhaust RAM, especially if the same server is handling the requests. Plus, traditionally there are large sets of data that needs to be searchable, hence the desirability of putting it in a database. So instead of actually having things in memory, people now use something like memcache to reasonably simulate that for performance.