3 ms·
1. The HN title is completely misleading. 2. The linked article is reporting some odd numbers. Eg. Facebook has reported several hundred thousand operations / s
by Maro 18y ago
1. The HN title is completely misleading. 2. The linked article is reporting some odd numbers. Eg. Facebook has reported several hundred thousand operations / second for memcached, the article is reporting 120. Also, the article is only reporting numbers for disk-based BDB, but BDB also has an in-memory mode, google for "bdb in-memory". I don't actually know how it performs, but it's possible.
- evgen 18y agoThe article was measuring the speed of random writes and counter updates. While I am sure Facebook can get several hundred thousand read operations per second, they are not getting that many write operations.
- sanswork 18y agoThe linked article is testing on one machine where Facebook has a very large cluster. He tests all of them on the same machine so it's the relative performance that matters in this case.
- Maro 18y agoThat FB number is for a single 8-core server. Also, for in-memory stores, reads and writes are not that different I assume.
- brendano 18y agohey i wrote the article. this is only measuring a single client -- NOT the normal use case for memcached. i think that's why it was so slow.