Serverphorums.com - Memcached

The Very Versatile Thomas Sabo Necklace

nini01 — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:36:09 +0100

The
thomas sabo necklace and other jewellery lines are aimed at both women and men. This is part of the large success of this high quality silver jewellery. There is a little something for everybody no matter what their taste. Part of being successful in the jewellery business is being able to cater to a very wide audience.

One of the most endearingly popular products is the charm necklace. You can choose a necklace or a bracelet to adorn with multiple decorative charms, and there are plenty out there to choose from. These
thomas sabo uk come from every interest and aspect of life that you can think of. Everyone can have a necklace that reflects their individual taste and experiences. In today's society, we are into being unique and showing others who we are. This is the great thing about the Thomas Sabo Necklace and charm line.

All necklaces and bracelets are sterling silver of the highest quality. Depending on the length of the Thomas Sabo Necklace, it has many different weights. You can start at around dhs80 in price and work up to dhs250. After you choose a necklace, there are silver connectors that you choose from based again on weight.

If you buy a
thomas sabo charms necklace, it is advised to wear no more than three charms. Because of the weight of the silver, your neck can get weighed down pretty quick. It isn't easy limiting yourself. You can get as many charms as you want with a bracelet. With a Thomas Sabo Necklace, you can create a unique collection of charms and then just alternate. This will give you a unique look everyday or whenever you feel like you want to change. You can also have the feeling that you are wearing new jewellery every day. You will feel different when being able to have a fresh look whenever you want it.

Today, many men are going for the
thomas sabo sale Necklace. There are many masculine charms and charms that carry a more chunky character. There is a line of Gothic charms that appeal to a lot of men as well. There is no reason in today's day and age, why jewellery lines can't cater more to the individual sides of men. Thomas Sabo has done that with his ever growing line of sterling silver jewellery and necklaces.

Anyone can accessorise with their Thomas Sabo Necklace. You can buy rings, earrings, key chains, bracelets, and the endless number of charms. The statement to be made with this jewellery is almost infinitely variable.

If you are looking for Thomas Sabo necklaces, many retailers on the internet sell this fine line of sterling silver jewellery. Many suppliers offer everything from the wide collection of necklaces and charms, to bracelets, earrings, rings, and more. You can find whatever you are looking for when it comes to Thomas Sabo. Get in on a high quality silver jewellery line that can be as unique as you are. There really is something special for everyone.

Making a purchase could not be easier. Just browse our store, and add any items that you wish to buy into the shopping cart.We sell a range of jewellery, including Thomas Sabo necklace and other brands. Please visit our website at thomas sabo charms uk.

Re: Matrix in memcache

PlumbersStock.com — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 03:10:06 +0200

You can store them but it shouldn't be your only copy. I frequently
cache documents in memcache so I don't have to pull them off the
filesystem as often but I do store them in the filesystem. If using a
lot of memory you may have to increase the size of your cache.

per-key cache misses

Peter Phaal — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:40:07 +0200

Hi All,

The following article describes how to use sFlow instrumentation in
Memcached to identify the top keys responsible for cache misses:
http://blog.sflow.com/2010/10/memcached-missed-keys.html

For anyone interested in trying out sFlow in Memcached, the patch can
be downloaded from github:
http://github.com/sflow/memcached

Cheers,
Peter

Re: Matrix in memcache

Henrik Schröder — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:50:10 +0200

No, it's a cache, not a storage solution. When you put things in memcache
you are not guaranteed to be able to retrieve them again.

/Henrik

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 07:23, Sreejith S wrote:

> Hi..
> Thnk u for ur reply...
> let me explain my scenario
> On a sample set od 1000 documents i am generating a matrix of (may be)
> 1000000 * 1000 .I have much larger document set than this say 50000.
> So can memcahe be able to store these huge matrix representation as u
> said??
>
> Sreejith
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:56 AM, PlumbersStock.com <
> michaelm@plumbersstock.com> wrote:
>
>> When dealing with large data sets I sometimes split it into parts that
>> will fit with a master object that stores how many parts it should
>> have. Of course it could still fall out of cache but it's no worse
>> than if it was one large object that fell out of cache and possible
>> better if you kept a primary copy somewhere so you only have to grab
>> the missing chunks from it.
>>
>> big_object: 5
>> big_object_0: data
>> big_object_1: data
>> big_object_2: data
>> big_object_3: data
>> big_object_4: data
>
>
>

Re: Matrix in memcache

Sreejith S — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:30:06 +0200

Hi..
Thnk u for ur reply...
let me explain my scenario
On a sample set od 1000 documents i am generating a matrix of (may be)
1000000 * 1000 .I have much larger document set than this say 50000.
So can memcahe be able to store these huge matrix representation as u said??

Sreejith

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:56 AM, PlumbersStock.com <
michaelm@plumbersstock.com> wrote:

> When dealing with large data sets I sometimes split it into parts that
> will fit with a master object that stores how many parts it should
> have. Of course it could still fall out of cache but it's no worse
> than if it was one large object that fell out of cache and possible
> better if you kept a primary copy somewhere so you only have to grab
> the missing chunks from it.
>
> big_object: 5
> big_object_0: data
> big_object_1: data
> big_object_2: data
> big_object_3: data
> big_object_4: data

Re: Matrix in memcache

PlumbersStock.com — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 03:30:07 +0200

When dealing with large data sets I sometimes split it into parts that
will fit with a master object that stores how many parts it should
have. Of course it could still fall out of cache but it's no worse
than if it was one large object that fell out of cache and possible
better if you kept a primary copy somewhere so you only have to grab
the missing chunks from it.

big_object: 5
big_object_0: data
big_object_1: data
big_object_2: data
big_object_3: data
big_object_4: data

Re: memcached out of the box versus behavior tweaks

PlumbersStock.com — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 03:30:07 +0200

I'm interested in this too. I have a couple machines with 128GB of RAM
in each. I noticed the CentOS RPM I was using doesn't seem to let you
use more than 2GB of RAM per instance. I'd guess because it's 32bit.
Would it be better to have several 2GB instances as virtual machines
or a single massive instance? I have a 2GB instance on each physical
machine running now but they are completely inadequate as evictions
are a common problem.

Re: memcached timeout error because of slow response

dl4ner — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:20:08 +0200

> But yeah, hopefully you fixed it there.

I suppose we finnally found it.
I guess you might add those points to the timout wiki.

The problem seemed to boil down to the following:
vm.swappiness=60 (default) is a very bad idea, when combined
with deadline as a io scheduler.

symtom:
- after memcached up some days, timeouts start.
- after a server reboot, timeouts are gone.
- after memcache restart, timeouts are gone
- after memcached up some days, timeouts are back
- compiling with the newest libevent/glibc improved
things, but did remove problems.

environment:
- server 8 GB RAM, dedicated for mysql+memcached
- memcached configured for 2 GB
- mysqld runnig, showing ~2000 queries/second/avg/24h
- mysql needs about 2-3 GB RAM.
- we're caching ojects up to one week.

so normally one woud expect: 8 GB RAM -3 GB mysql -2 GB = 3 GB
should be sufficient for the OS doing nothing else (despite
running an amanda backup client during the bakcup in the night).

the above machine startet to swap out (only some MB, it was
less than 40MB, quite nothing, as the linux does using
vm.swappiness=60 swap out normal OS prcoessess, too).

And if there is one rarely used page of the memcache
swapped out, and an item from that page is requested, when
at the same time one mysql query creates some io, then
the corresponding memcache-page will be swapped in AFTER
the mysql process finishes (deadline io scheduler).
and that could be too late for the one second timeout.

I never had expected a machine to start swapping if
free tells me that there are some GB free for caches.

I never ever would have thought of 40M in swap when
3+ GB are caches/free would cause such a problem.

conclusion:
if you use memcache and need high amounts of memory with
many objects, keep a look at your swap, and if there is
something in it (even 1 kb) - it might be too much.
after setting vm.swappiness to zero and paging in all swap,
the effects were gone.

It explains also that we encountered the problem only
on this machine whereas on about 40 other servers we
did not - this machine was the oldest hardware,
the slowest disks (even if raid10 on 4 disks) and the
least memory (oure newer mysql/memcache servers
have 16..32GB RAM), so they did not start to swap out
even with vm.swappiness=60 ...

regards.

Werner.

Re: curious questions

Shi Yu — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:10:13 +0200

In my understandings, memcached server supports protocol-based
retrieval. This makes the design and implementation more flexible and
distributable. As a cache, the server would prioritize the frequently
retrieved records than the less frequently retrieved ones. So useful
information will be obtained much faster, in contrast, the useless
information will be obtained slower and eventually be replaced by new
information. Cache also has security advantages cause most of the
applications are web-based, simply in that case it is not good to
explore the ram-memory of a machine directly to the web.

Shi

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Minh Doan wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Sorry for the following stupid question.
>
> I've got the idea of memcached. Memcached data are stored in multiple
> memcached servers which run independently. Whenever you need to lookup a
> (key/value), just calculate a hash to find the server id, and then call a
> lookup-service on the server. So:
>
> what are the advantages of memcached against a normal server which store
> data in ram-memory?
> Thanks
> ---
> Minh
>
>

curious questions

Minh Doan — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:40:09 +0200

Hi folks,

Sorry for the following stupid question.

I've got the idea of memcached. Memcached data are stored in multiple
memcached servers which run independently. Whenever you need to lookup a
(key/value), just calculate a hash to find the server id, and then call a
lookup-service on the server. So:

what are the advantages of memcached against a normal server which store
data in ram-memory?
Thanks
---
Minh

Re: Most efficient way of modifying value

Aaron Boxer — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:30:07 +0200

Thanks, rhohitk. I found out about redis after some further
investigation; looks perfect for this problem.

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Rohit Karlupia wrote:
> May be you are better off using redis which provides some in memory pre
> built data structures like lists and sets.
> thanks!
> rohitk
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Jorge wrote:
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I would like to use memcached as a fast cache for a hospital order
>> database.
>>
>> Each order has a location (5 possible values), procedure (about 100
>> possible values),
>> and patient status (3 different values).
>>
>> So, my thinking was for each order, create a key as follows:
>>
>> (location code)_(procedure code)_(status code)
>>
>> and the value would be a list of all orders matching a given code.
>>
>> So, doing a query on a given location, procedure and status will just
>> entail reading the value from the key.
>>
>> My question is: what is the best way of modifying the value, as an in-
>> memory list.
>>
>> Can this be done on the memcached server, or do I need the client to
>> pull the value out,
>> modify it, and put it back in?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>

Re: Most efficient way of modifying value

Dustin — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:20:11 +0200

On Oct 19, 10:16 am, Jorge wrote:

> My question is: what is the best way of modifying the value, as an in-
> memory list.

Just append the new value with some sort of separator.

> Can this be done on the memcached server, or do I need the client to
> pull the value out,
> modify it, and put it back in?

If you need something more complex than append, you can build save
an arbitrarily complex transformations with CAS.

Re: Most efficient way of modifying value

Rohit Karlupia — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:00:15 +0200

May be you are better off using redis which provides some in memory pre
built data structures like lists and sets.

thanks!
rohitk

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Jorge wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I would like to use memcached as a fast cache for a hospital order
> database.
>
> Each order has a location (5 possible values), procedure (about 100
> possible values),
> and patient status (3 different values).
>
> So, my thinking was for each order, create a key as follows:
>
> (location code)_(procedure code)_(status code)
>
> and the value would be a list of all orders matching a given code.
>
> So, doing a query on a given location, procedure and status will just
> entail reading the value from the key.
>
> My question is: what is the best way of modifying the value, as an in-
> memory list.
>
> Can this be done on the memcached server, or do I need the client to
> pull the value out,
> modify it, and put it back in?
>
> Thanks!
>
>

Re: Most efficient way of modifying value

Dustin — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:50:14 +0200

On Oct 26, 6:57 am, nooby wrote:

> Obviously this means that whatever value was there in the first
> place is not important so 'replace' operation should do the trick.
> That is, replace the value if and only if it already exists there.

I wouldn't recommend the replace operation in general. All it means
is ``only fail if I'm not destroying data somewhere.'' You can't make
any assumptions as to what data is being destroyed.

Any place where you'd use replace, you probably want either plain
set or set with a CAS.

Re: Most efficient way of modifying value

nooby — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:30:06 +0200

Hi,

If I understand correctly you want to modify the value without
having the client fetching the value first.
Obviously this means that whatever value was there in the first
place is not important so 'replace' operation should do the trick.
That is, replace the value if and only if it already exists there.

If you have many clients trying to do an update the last replace wins
which might not be what you want. You might want to look at compare
and set operation which obviously requires you to do a get first.

Also take a look at the memcached FAQ for the "ghetto lock" in this
case you would do a lock even if the value already existed because the
client will modify it anyway i guess.

i hope this helps...

On Oct 19, 1:16 pm, Jorge wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I would like to use memcached as a fast cache for a hospital order
> database.
>
> Each order has a location (5 possible values), procedure (about 100
> possible values),
> and patient status (3 different values).
>
> So, my thinking was for each order, create a key as follows:
>
> (location code)_(procedure code)_(status code)
>
> and the value would be a list of all orders matching a given code.
>
> So, doing a query on a given location, procedure and status will just
> entail reading the value from the key.
>
> My question is: what is the best way of modifying the value, as an in-
> memory list.
>
> Can this be done on the memcached server, or do I need the client to
> pull the value out,
> modify it, and put it back in?
>
> Thanks!

Re: Memcached underutilized

amix — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:30:05 +0200

Hi Maxim

Thanks for the clarification!

Kind regards,
amix

On 23 Okt., 00:05, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 02:51:05PM -0700, amix wrote:
> > Have done some more debugging and here is what I have found.
>
> > The general main differences for these two servers seems to be:
> > 'curr_items': '132819', (memcached 1.4.5)
> > 'curr_items': '3907837', (memcached 1.2.2)
>
> > Total items seem to be very similar, i.e.
> > 'total_items': '62899221', (memcached 1.4.5)
> > 'total_items': '68416527', (memcached 1.2.2)
>
> > Testing memcached 1.2.2 and memcached 1.4.5 and filling it up with
> > sample data it seems like memcached 1.4.5 is much better at using
> > memory that has been allocated by expired items. Is this correct?
>
> > If so, it would mean that our cache is way underutilized in general
> > and that 1.4.5 is much better at managing memory (i.e. it won't
> > allocate memory if it does not need to).
>
> > Could someone that's familiar with memcached internals please confirm
> > this.
>
> Yes.
>
> Re-use of expired items before allocating new items was done by
> Trond Norbye[1][2] (in 1.4.0+). Note that "reclaimed" stats shows
> how many times memcached re-used expired items.
>
> [1]http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=14
> [2]http://github.com/memcached/memcached/commit/d3807d06f0693b0435545d35....
>
> Maxim Dounin

Re: Memcached underutilized

Maxim Dounin — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:10:04 +0200

Hello!

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 02:51:05PM -0700, amix wrote:

> Have done some more debugging and here is what I have found.
>
> The general main differences for these two servers seems to be:
> 'curr_items': '132819', (memcached 1.4.5)
> 'curr_items': '3907837', (memcached 1.2.2)
>
> Total items seem to be very similar, i.e.
> 'total_items': '62899221', (memcached 1.4.5)
> 'total_items': '68416527', (memcached 1.2.2)
>
> Testing memcached 1.2.2 and memcached 1.4.5 and filling it up with
> sample data it seems like memcached 1.4.5 is much better at using
> memory that has been allocated by expired items. Is this correct?
>
> If so, it would mean that our cache is way underutilized in general
> and that 1.4.5 is much better at managing memory (i.e. it won't
> allocate memory if it does not need to).
>
> Could someone that's familiar with memcached internals please confirm
> this.

Yes.

Re-use of expired items before allocating new items was done by
Trond Norbye[1][2] (in 1.4.0+). Note that "reclaimed" stats shows
how many times memcached re-used expired items.

[1] http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=14
[2] http://github.com/memcached/memcached/commit/d3807d06f0693b0435545d35462de2829a61a7d1

Maxim Dounin

Re: Memcached underutilized

amix — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:00:16 +0200

Have done some more debugging and here is what I have found.

The general main differences for these two servers seems to be:
'curr_items': '132819', (memcached 1.4.5)
'curr_items': '3907837', (memcached 1.2.2)

Total items seem to be very similar, i.e.
'total_items': '62899221', (memcached 1.4.5)
'total_items': '68416527', (memcached 1.2.2)

Testing memcached 1.2.2 and memcached 1.4.5 and filling it up with
sample data it seems like memcached 1.4.5 is much better at using
memory that has been allocated by expired items. Is this correct?

If so, it would mean that our cache is way underutilized in general
and that 1.4.5 is much better at managing memory (i.e. it won't
allocate memory if it does not need to).

Could someone that's familiar with memcached internals please confirm
this.

Regards,
amix

On 22 Okt., 23:12, amix wrote:
> We have recently added a new memcached server, but it's underutilized
> or at least not as much utilized as our other memcached servers. The
> difference between this new server and the older server are following:
> * memcached 1.4.5 is run (instead of memcached 1.2.2)
> * Ubuntu 10 is run (instead of Ubuntu 8)
>
> Has something drastically changed between 1.2.2 and 1.4.5? Or has
> something changed between Ubuntu 8 and Ubuntu 10? Anybody else having
> a similar issue?
>
> Here is usage patterns from these two servers. Each of them have 3GB
> available, but the server running 1.4.5 only uses around 300MB. We are
> unsure what the cause is. These servers are run like this:
>
> memcached -m 3072 -k -p 11221 -u plurk -l 192.168.0.35 -c 10240
>
> Regards,
> amix
>
> [ ( '192.168.0.35:11221 (1)',
>    { 'accepting_conns': '1',
>    'auth_cmds': '0',
>    'auth_errors': '0',
>    'bytes': '71301667',
>    'bytes_read': '68596588527',
>    'bytes_written': '215641263049',
>    'cas_badval': '0',
>    'cas_hits': '0',
>    'cas_misses': '0',
>    'cmd_flush': '0',
>    'cmd_get': '246655883',
>    'cmd_set': '62909113',
>    'conn_yields': '0',
>    'connection_structures': '2526',
>    'curr_connections': '2262',
>    'curr_items': '132819',
>    'decr_hits': '0',
>    'decr_misses': '0',
>    'delete_hits': '2297822',
>    'delete_misses': '23286159',
>    'evictions': '0',
>    'get_hits': '163185291',
>    'get_misses': '83470592',
>    'incr_hits': '25466',
>    'incr_misses': '0',
>    'limit_maxbytes': '3221225472',
>    'listen_disabled_num': '0',
>    'pid': '7319',
>    'pointer_size': '64',
>    'reclaimed': '36224211',
>    'rusage_system': '8341.840000',
>    'rusage_user': '3173.390000',
>    'threads': '4',
>    'time': '1287781046',
>    'total_connections': '139794',
>    'total_items': '62899221',
>    'uptime': '514507',
>    'version': '1.4.5'}),
>    ( '192.168.0.70:11221 (1)',
>    { 'bytes': '2879886510',
>    'bytes_read': '65548028841',
>    'bytes_written': '179395226207',
>    'cmd_get': '277646387',
>    'cmd_set': '68425776',
>    'connection_structures': '2553',
>    'curr_connections': '2291',
>    'curr_items': '3907837',
>    'evictions': '0',
>    'get_hits': '193391910',
>    'get_misses': '84254477',
>    'limit_maxbytes': '3221225472',
>    'pid': '17580',
>    'pointer_size': '64',
>    'rusage_system': '6113.240000',
>    'rusage_user': '3507.560000',
>    'threads': '1',
>    'time': '1287781045',
>    'total_connections': '138271',
>    'total_items': '68416527',
>    'uptime': '514517',
>    'version': '1.2.2'})]

Memcached underutilized

amix — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:30:15 +0200

We have recently added a new memcached server, but it's underutilized
or at least not as much utilized as our other memcached servers. The
difference between this new server and the older server are following:
* memcached 1.4.5 is run (instead of memcached 1.2.2)
* Ubuntu 10 is run (instead of Ubuntu 8)

Has something drastically changed between 1.2.2 and 1.4.5? Or has
something changed between Ubuntu 8 and Ubuntu 10? Anybody else having
a similar issue?

Here is usage patterns from these two servers. Each of them have 3GB
available, but the server running 1.4.5 only uses around 300MB. We are
unsure what the cause is. These servers are run like this:

memcached -m 3072 -k -p 11221 -u plurk -l 192.168.0.35 -c 10240

Regards,
amix

[ ( '192.168.0.35:11221 (1)',
{ 'accepting_conns': '1',
'auth_cmds': '0',
'auth_errors': '0',
'bytes': '71301667',
'bytes_read': '68596588527',
'bytes_written': '215641263049',
'cas_badval': '0',
'cas_hits': '0',
'cas_misses': '0',
'cmd_flush': '0',
'cmd_get': '246655883',
'cmd_set': '62909113',
'conn_yields': '0',
'connection_structures': '2526',
'curr_connections': '2262',
'curr_items': '132819',
'decr_hits': '0',
'decr_misses': '0',
'delete_hits': '2297822',
'delete_misses': '23286159',
'evictions': '0',
'get_hits': '163185291',
'get_misses': '83470592',
'incr_hits': '25466',
'incr_misses': '0',
'limit_maxbytes': '3221225472',
'listen_disabled_num': '0',
'pid': '7319',
'pointer_size': '64',
'reclaimed': '36224211',
'rusage_system': '8341.840000',
'rusage_user': '3173.390000',
'threads': '4',
'time': '1287781046',
'total_connections': '139794',
'total_items': '62899221',
'uptime': '514507',
'version': '1.4.5'}),
( '192.168.0.70:11221 (1)',
{ 'bytes': '2879886510',
'bytes_read': '65548028841',
'bytes_written': '179395226207',
'cmd_get': '277646387',
'cmd_set': '68425776',
'connection_structures': '2553',
'curr_connections': '2291',
'curr_items': '3907837',
'evictions': '0',
'get_hits': '193391910',
'get_misses': '84254477',
'limit_maxbytes': '3221225472',
'pid': '17580',
'pointer_size': '64',
'rusage_system': '6113.240000',
'rusage_user': '3507.560000',
'threads': '1',
'time': '1287781045',
'total_connections': '138271',
'total_items': '68416527',
'uptime': '514517',
'version': '1.2.2'})]

Re: Issue 140 in memcached: "stats items" does not return correct "age" value

Anonymous User — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:50:02 +0200

Comment #4 on issue 140 by sanjeeva...@gmail.com: "stats items" does not
return correct "age" value
http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=140

Is it possible to get a fix for this soon? It used to work in the old
version (1.2.6)

Thanks.

Sanjeev

Re: cannot assign requested address (99)

Rohit Karlupia — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:50:17 +0200

STAT curr_connections 15
STAT total_connections 340578

Looks like your client code is creating and closing connections, instead of
reusing them.
You could increase the port range and/or decrease the tcp close timeout, but
much easier fix would be to use the client libraries connection reusing
ability.

thanks!
Rohit Karlupia

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM, dormando wrote:

>
> > We have a very busy high traffic site and recently started using memached
> to store frequently accessed queries. We put memcached on each
> > php application server so that the connection is local to the system.
> > Today, during one of our peek times, we started getting this error and
> had to disable the caching of queries:
> >
> > [20-Oct-2010 12:05:57] PHP Warning: Memcache::connect() [ > href='memcache.connect'>memcache.connect]: Can't connect to
> > 127.0.0.1:11211, Cannot assign requested address (99)
>
> You're probably running out of local ports. Google for that phrase and
> you'll probably find help :)
>
> Just as a side note; you're meant to set up memcached as a big cluster and
> use all the cache space, as noted at http://memcached.org/about - sticking
> them all to localhost only defeats half the purpose. yes I know that
> "localhost is faster" but it's more than adequate over the network.
>
> -Dormando

Re: cannot assign requested address (99)

dormando — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:30:07 +0200

> We have a very busy high traffic site and recently started using memached to store frequently accessed queries. We put memcached on each
> php application server so that the connection is local to the system.
> Today, during one of our peek times, we started getting this error and had to disable the caching of queries:
>
> [20-Oct-2010 12:05:57] PHP Warning: Memcache::connect() [memcache.connect]: Can't connect to
> 127.0.0.1:11211, Cannot assign requested address (99)

You're probably running out of local ports. Google for that phrase and
you'll probably find help :)

Just as a side note; you're meant to set up memcached as a big cluster and
use all the cache space, as noted at http://memcached.org/about - sticking
them all to localhost only defeats half the purpose. yes I know that
"localhost is faster" but it's more than adequate over the network.

-Dormando

Matrix in memcache

Sreejith S — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 06:40:06 +0200

Hi all..

I have dense matrix (large sized matrix).Because of its size i could not be
able to kept in memory.So i would like to use memcache.I configured
memcached and is working.
But how can i represent this Matrix input as a key,value pair.Is there any
need to use any Db like MongoDb...

Pls help me to find out the solution

Thank you
Sreejith

memcached out of the box versus behavior tweaks

Patrick Galbraith — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:11:07 +0200

Hi all,

Just wondering about a few things while pondering - what are most people
using in terms of memcached out of the box - starting it up with a
particular size, but not setting any particular behavior, or what
settings have people modified in the behavior of the client that they've
found useful for their installations?

Also, for large installations, what have people found works better - one
large instance or smaller multiple instances? I'm thinking if you were
to use buckets, that the latter wouldn't be as necessary.

Thoughts?

cannot assign requested address (99)

Ilan Berkner — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:30:10 +0200

We have a very busy high traffic site and recently started using memached to
store frequently accessed queries. We put memcached on each php application
server so that the connection is local to the system.

Today, during one of our peek times, we started getting this error and had
to disable the caching of queries:

[20-Oct-2010 12:05:57] PHP Warning: Memcache::connect() [ href='memcache.connect'>memcache.connect]: Can't connect to
127.0.0.1:11211, Cannot assign requested address (99)

In searching online for this error, I came across several articles, but
nothing that I though was relevant to our case. I tried increasing the
number of connections from 1024 (default) to 5000 but the error continued.

Does anyone have any suggestions / thoughts of where to look?

stats information is below:

STAT pid 13425
STAT uptime 1940
STAT time 1287591991
STAT version 1.4.5
STAT pointer_size 64
STAT rusage_user 6.443020
STAT rusage_system 25.109182
STAT curr_connections 15
STAT total_connections 340578
STAT connection_structures 118
STAT cmd_get 357224
STAT cmd_set 136334
STAT cmd_flush 0
STAT get_hits 326956
STAT get_misses 30268
STAT delete_misses 0
STAT delete_hits 0
STAT incr_misses 0
STAT incr_hits 0
STAT decr_misses 0
STAT decr_hits 0
STAT cas_misses 0
STAT cas_hits 0
STAT cas_badval 0
STAT auth_cmds 0
STAT auth_errors 0
STAT bytes_read 21641880
STAT bytes_written 41425437
STAT limit_maxbytes 1073741824
STAT accepting_conns 1
STAT listen_disabled_num 0
STAT threads 4
STAT conn_yields 0
STAT bytes 2925203
STAT curr_items 19070
STAT total_items 136334
STAT evictions 0
STAT reclaimed 12
END

Re: Memory capacity overflow of memcached

dormando — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:30:13 +0200

Uhh, try 128MB? or higher?

Are you adjusting the slab factor size? The minimum amount of memory
memcached uses is 1MB * the number of slab classes + some misc stuff (the
hash table, buffers, etc). 48M should be enough tho...

Just in case; if you're asking if you set the memory limit to 128M, and
you store 256M of data, what happens? That should work, and you should see
'evictions' increasing in the 'stats' output. As it'll eject the oldest
data to make room for newer data. You can start it with -M I think if you
want to have it get pissed off once it's full.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, yashushi wrote:

> Hi Dormando,
>
> We have tried the setting with 48MB and 64MB, but the same problem
> still comes out.
> Please kindly help to clarify.
> Thank you.
>
> -Yashushi
>
>
> On 10月18日, 下午4時50分, dormando wrote:
> > > Hi,
> >
> > > My team try to use memcached to provide PHP caching recently but we
> > > find out there is a memoryoverflowproblem.
> >
> > > Here is the steps we have tested.
> > > (1)Create memcached with the max. memory is 4MB .
> > > (2)Add 900KB data from web to memcached 3 times.
> > > (3)Add 700KB data from web to memcached.
> > > (4)Add 500KB data from web to memcached.
> > > (5)Add 300KB data from web to memcached.
> > > (6)The new data still can transfer to memcached when new data size is
> > > greater than memcached remaining space size.
> >
> > > We use "stats" to check "bytes" and it shows the memory size is over
> > > 4MB.
> > > Could you help to clarify what is going on?
> > > Thank you.
> >
> > The lowest the memory limit can go is about 48M. It ignores anything
> > lower.
> >
> > -Dormando
>

Re: Memory capacity overflow of memcached

yashushi — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:20:07 +0200

Hi Dormando,

We have tried the setting with 48MB and 64MB, but the same problem
still comes out.
Please kindly help to clarify.
Thank you.

-Yashushi

On 10月18日, 下午4時50分, dormando wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > My team try to use memcached to provide PHP caching recently but we
> > find out there is a memoryoverflowproblem.
>
> > Here is the steps we have tested.
> > (1)Create memcached with the max. memory is 4MB .
> > (2)Add 900KB data from web to memcached 3 times.
> > (3)Add 700KB data from web to memcached.
> > (4)Add 500KB data from web to memcached.
> > (5)Add 300KB data from web to memcached.
> > (6)The new data still can transfer to memcached when new data size is
> > greater than memcached remaining space size.
>
> > We use "stats" to check "bytes" and it shows the memory size is over
> > 4MB.
> > Could you help to clarify what is going on?
> > Thank you.
>
> The lowest the memory limit can go is about 48M. It ignores anything
> lower.
>
> -Dormando

Re: 1MB limit on object size

Sakuntala — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:40:16 +0200

Peter and Dustin,

Thanks a ton for your replies. The info did help me.

-Sakuntala.

On Oct 15, 12:58 pm, Dustin wrote:
> On Oct 15, 9:56 am, "Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>
> > Yes, it's a hard limit (but you can recompile memcached if you want a
> > higher limit). But most client libraries can compress the
> > objects before storing it. If you have enabled compression in spy
> > memcached client (which might be the default) it is possible that you
> > can store items much larger than 1MB if they compress well.
>
> If you don't want to recompile it, you can just use -I at runtime.
>
> -I Override the size of each slab page. Adjusts max item
> size
> (default: 1mb, min: 1k, max: 128m)

Most efficient way of modifying value

Jorge — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:30:07 +0200

Hello!

I would like to use memcached as a fast cache for a hospital order
database.

Each order has a location (5 possible values), procedure (about 100
possible values),
and patient status (3 different values).

So, my thinking was for each order, create a key as follows:

(location code)_(procedure code)_(status code)

and the value would be a list of all orders matching a given code.

So, doing a query on a given location, procedure and status will just
entail reading the value from the key.

My question is: what is the best way of modifying the value, as an in-
memory list.

Can this be done on the memcached server, or do I need the client to
pull the value out,
modify it, and put it back in?

Thanks!

Re: next planned release of memcached

Matt Ingenthron — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:40:11 +0200

Hi Pavel,

On 10/19/10 12:00 AM, Pavel Kushnirchuk wrote:
> Folks,
>
> May be anybody know, when will be a next planned release of memcached.
> Especially I am interested in a release of Win32 branch.
>

As dormando said, we're aiming to put some effort into this soon. I'm
curious though, what about Win32 are you looking for updates for? Just
want to be sure it's something we're thinking about already.

- Matt