Riak instead of memcached?

Mike Stoddart stodge at gmail.com
Wed Feb 16 20:36:14 EST 2011


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
<jasonjwwilliams at 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 <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