3 ms·
This totally misses the point of Memcache. Firstly, why do you need a disk at all, let alone 512GB of flash? Secondly, the whole point of Memcache is that you
by russss 18y ago
This totally misses the point of Memcache. Firstly, why do you need a disk at all, let alone 512GB of flash?
Secondly, the whole point of Memcache is that you can distribute it across multiple boxes. Facebook, the largest Memcache user in the world, does fine with that.
We could easily buy 640GB of memcache capacity for the price they're asking for 64GB.
- wmf 18y agoThis box is $45K for 512GB, so I don't know where you're getting 64GB. It's an appliance, so what's inside it doesn't matter; they're using flash because it's (supposed to be) cheaper and denser than DRAM (see related discussion http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=558820 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=558820 ). There is a difference between a cluster with N boxes and a cluster with N/8 boxes; if they're similar total cost almost everyone would choose to have fewer servers.
- russss 18y agoIt's $45k for 512GB of disk and 64GB of RAM. And however fast flash is, it's not as fast as RAM by a fair margin. Memcache is all about RAM. And if I had a choice of 640GB of Memcache in one box, or in 8 boxes, I'd chose the 8 boxes. You need redundancy, and you need parallelism.