Thanks. I like Riak's flexibility. Just throw another server into the mix and Riak adjusts accordingly. With memcached I'd have to change code or configuration and restart to see the new machine. I could locate a small Riak database on servers that need permissions/preferences/etc. I don't think I need sessions. I guess I could memcached Riak on each machine for reads! Haha, that kind of stuff just makes me chuckle... :)
Thanks Mike On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Jason J. W. Williams <jasonjwwilli...@gmail.com> wrote: > My benchmarks with Riak against Redis showed Riak is fast, but it's > never going to be as fast for caching as an in-memory only store that > doesn't have to do coordination. That said if your data set is larger > than RAM, Riak will likely be faster as it will scale to handle that > better. > > -J > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Mike Stoddart <sto...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I was thinking of using memcached for cheap, fast storage to share >> between servers. I need to store stuff like user preferences, >> permissions, session etc. But memcached (I think) requires you to >> define which servers you want to use for storage. Ideally I don't >> care. I want my core/auth server to write preferences and permissions >> to the cache and let tornado on other servers pull those keys out. I >> think Riak could perform this in theory, but is Riak fast enough? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> riak-users mailing list >> riak-users@lists.basho.com >> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com >> > _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
