Riak instead of memcached?

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Wed Feb 16 20:25:44 EST 2011


On 2/16/11 6:33 PM, Mike Stoddart 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?

Memcached lets you set up a group of servers and configure the clients to know 
about all of them.  After that, distribution is handled automatically over the 
set, but you can't count on the storage being persistent - that is, a server may 
fail or values may be evicted, and the clients need to be able to retrieve them 
from a slower db and replenish them in the cache.  Membase uses a similar 
interface but does provide persistent storage.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com




More information about the riak-users mailing list