Comments on: I only block for memcached http://www.techyouruniverse.com/technology/i-only-block-for-memcached Musings about technology from a Geek Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:31:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Marc’s Voice » Blog Archive » Compendium of coolio posts - blogging Feb ‘09 http://www.techyouruniverse.com/technology/i-only-block-for-memcached#comment-2176 Marc’s Voice » Blog Archive » Compendium of coolio posts - blogging Feb ‘09 Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:17:31 +0000 http://www.techyouruniverse.com/technology/i-only-block-for-memcached#comment-2176 [...] I only block for memcached [...] […] I only block for memcached […]

]]> By: Clint Byrum http://www.techyouruniverse.com/technology/i-only-block-for-memcached#comment-2167 Clint Byrum Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:05:19 +0000 http://www.techyouruniverse.com/technology/i-only-block-for-memcached#comment-2167 One who is interested in stating things more elegantly might say: I only block for milliseconds. Unfortunately 999 milliseconds is a long ass time to block. Damn. You get the point though. The reason blocking for memcached is ok, is that you know as long as you're using it in a reasonable way that it will not ever block for more than a handful of milliseconds. Most web storage activities need not be synchronous. However, our obsession with things like MySQL has made us learn to deal with the pain of overly complex, overly flexible, synchronous storage systems. Your example of recording 7200 things per second in memcached is a perfect example. Its async (I'm sure something comes along and puts those values in a safe place later), and even if you lost an hour of data, probably nobody would care. Simplify your communications, queue/delay hard things, and.. be well John Spartan. One who is interested in stating things more elegantly might say:

I only block for milliseconds.

Unfortunately 999 milliseconds is a long ass time to block. Damn.

You get the point though. The reason blocking for memcached is ok, is that you know as long as you’re using it in a reasonable way that it will not ever block for more than a handful of milliseconds.

Most web storage activities need not be synchronous. However, our obsession with things like MySQL has made us learn to deal with the pain of overly complex, overly flexible, synchronous storage systems. Your example of recording 7200 things per second in memcached is a perfect example. Its async (I’m sure something comes along and puts those values in a safe place later), and even if you lost an hour of data, probably nobody would care.

Simplify your communications, queue/delay hard things, and.. be well John Spartan.

]]>