The real issue, in my opinion, is that if you have values anywhere close to 1MB in size, what you probably actually have are values that are *unlimited* in size and therefore expanding the size you can store in memcached is just a stopgap measure and doesn't solve the underlying problem.
Most of the best practices for memcached (eg using it as a demand-filled, look aside cache and using deletes for consistency) work best when data is chunked into small units that you fetch several if rather than a large set of data that you only use parts of. Your mileage may vary, so do what makes sense for your use case, but without info about specific things you're trying to accomplish, this is the best generic advice I have to give people wondering about the size limitations. I am personally unaware of performance implications. ~Ryan (mobile) > On Sep 10, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Olivier Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all > > I am trying to find feedbacks on using memcached with entry size superior to > 1Mo, the default value. > Since 1.4.2., it is possible to change this setting by configuration but i > can't find any feedback on the performance and throughput. > I have seen a couple posts prior to 2010 who said that is not a good idea to > increase this value and to prefer chucking the value in several memcached > entries. > Do someone have some relevant information, benchmark, graphics on this use > case? Is keeping the default value still a best practice? > > Thanks for your feedback > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "memcached" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
