Riak instead of memcached?

Jason J. W. Williams jasonjwwilliams at gmail.com
Wed Feb 16 19:48:28 EST 2011


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 <stodge at 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 at lists.basho.com
> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
>




More information about the riak-users mailing list