6 ms·
Isn't memcachedb faster? Comparing the posted benchmark results with http://memcachedb.org/benchmark.html http://memcachedb.org/benchmark.html You get around
by sebastian 18y ago
Isn't memcachedb faster?
Comparing the posted benchmark results with http://memcachedb.org/benchmark.html http://memcachedb.org/benchmark.html
You get around 2800 r/s using LightCloud vs. around 64000 r/s using Memcachedb
and around 1080 w/s using LightCloud vs. around 23500 w/s using Memcachedb.
I would be interested in seeing some benchmarks that compare both.
I really like LightCloud's idea of automatic scaling, failover and load balancing.
- amix 18y agoPlease do see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=498699 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=498699 (memcachedb != LightCloud). memcachedb should be compared with Tokyo Tyrant and not LightCloud. And if you liked, you could extend LightCloud with memcachedb support (which we also had at one point and ran it in production [see my posts on memcachedb mailing list for proof]), but really, when it comes to key-value databases, it's really hard to beat Tokyo Tyrant, which is the fastest and most feature complete key-value database out there (IMO and I have looked at most of the popular solutions).
- jwinter 18y agoThat comment says: "memcachedb is not distributed, meaning that you can only scale vertically (i.e. by buying bigger machines)." Is that true? The docs on memcachedb seem to imply the opposite.
- amix 18y agomemcachedb is not distributed - it only supports replication. I.e. with memcachedb you can only scale reads, but not writes (or at least not without a system like LightCloud on top of it).