37 ms·

Obligatory question: why would I use a shared memcache when having memcache on own server is as easy as sudo apt-get install memcache?

vyrotek 16y ago
I would consider using it if its cheaper than turning on another node within my cloud environment. One thing less to manage. edit- Just realized you have to being using Linode as well. Now I question this too. I thought this was going to be Memcached as a service.
- ritonlajoie 16y ago
  Pardon me, memcached is designed to be run in a LAN. Right now I have my box on Linode. Sorry to ask, what do you mean by "as a service" ? If you are on EC2 or Slicehost, I'm not trying on these networks right now, but as said on the page I linked, if the experiment is a success on Linode, I will surely make it to other VPS providers. Hope I could answer your question..
  - vyrotek 16y ago
    Sorry, I've been recently investigating a couple of Memcached services that are used over a REST service and so it was on my mind when I first read your service description. The reason I was slightly interested is because Windows Azure right now doesn't have good support for any sort of distributed cache system. So we've been shopping around.
- paraschopra 16y ago
  Memcache as a service will defeat the whole purpose of having cache in memory. Latencies will kill you. Memcache will only make sense if it is hosted in the private LAN.
  - vyrotek 16y ago
    Thought the same thing too, but apparently there are companies that offer it and there are people buying it.
  - sounddust 16y ago
    Memcache will only make sense if it is hosted in the private LAN. I think the point is that he's only offering it to Linode users in the Dallas data center, which is where his service is located. Therefore the latency will be in the sub 1ms range, comparable to a private LAN. There may be other issues with this approach, but latency isn't one of them, at least in this implementation.
    - paraschopra 16y ago
      Yes, I agree. I was replying to the other commentator who asked memcache as a service. Memcache on public network will kill the objectives because latency would then be the main issue.
ritonlajoie 16y ago
I'm glad you asked :) Right now I'm offering a 200MB cache. The goal is to be able to 'burst' it. Hosting your own memcached is nice, and easy as you said, but then you are using your RAM and this can be a problem for some low cost linodes that are full of apps. If this trial works, I can relatively say that we won't be talking about 200MB, but GB of "burstable" cache. And you won't get it for free on Linode. Also, this is an experiment.

vyrotek 16y ago

I would consider using it if its cheaper than turning on another node within my cloud environment. One thing less to manage. edit- Just realized you have to being using Linode as well. Now I question this too. I thought this was going to be Memcached as a service.

ritonlajoie 16y ago
Pardon me, memcached is designed to be run in a LAN. Right now I have my box on Linode. Sorry to ask, what do you mean by "as a service" ? If you are on EC2 or Slicehost, I'm not trying on these networks right now, but as said on the page I linked, if the experiment is a success on Linode, I will surely make it to other VPS providers. Hope I could answer your question..
- vyrotek 16y ago
  Sorry, I've been recently investigating a couple of Memcached services that are used over a REST service and so it was on my mind when I first read your service description. The reason I was slightly interested is because Windows Azure right now doesn't have good support for any sort of distributed cache system. So we've been shopping around.
paraschopra 16y ago
Memcache as a service will defeat the whole purpose of having cache in memory. Latencies will kill you. Memcache will only make sense if it is hosted in the private LAN.
- vyrotek 16y ago
  Thought the same thing too, but apparently there are companies that offer it and there are people buying it.
- sounddust 16y ago
  Memcache will only make sense if it is hosted in the private LAN. I think the point is that he's only offering it to Linode users in the Dallas data center, which is where his service is located. Therefore the latency will be in the sub 1ms range, comparable to a private LAN. There may be other issues with this approach, but latency isn't one of them, at least in this implementation.
  - paraschopra 16y ago
    Yes, I agree. I was replying to the other commentator who asked memcache as a service. Memcache on public network will kill the objectives because latency would then be the main issue.

ritonlajoie 16y ago

I'm glad you asked :) Right now I'm offering a 200MB cache. The goal is to be able to 'burst' it. Hosting your own memcached is nice, and easy as you said, but then you are using your RAM and this can be a problem for some low cost linodes that are full of apps. If this trial works, I can relatively say that we won't be talking about 200MB, but GB of "burstable" cache. And you won't get it for free on Linode. Also, this is an experiment.