Re: ZEO as a kind of memcache

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Sean Upton <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 2:44 PM, Rafael Oliveira <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It seems like a textbook case for memcache. However, I already have ZEO,
> which is already there, talking to all instances. So, why not use ZEO as a
> replacement for memcache?
>
>
> Because you want to be very careful about not inducing a write on
> otherwise "read" transactions.  This can greatly increase chance for
> conflicts, and other sorts of problems.
>

I understand this advice. But, does it still holds for the concrete setup I
showed, ie., a secondary in-memory storage, dedicated to act as a cache?


> If you just want to cache, use a cache.
>

I want to use ZEO with an in-memory storage as a cache.

If you want to and need to persist, then do it on save transactions or via
> a job queue.
>

I don't want to persist.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zodb" 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.