|
Multi-instance on Win2K3?
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Hi there,
Just wondering if someone can point me in the direction of a
resource describing how to configure multiple instances of Memcached on a single
Windows 2003 server.
Thanks!
Matt
|
|
Re: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
I had asked about some things related to this a few weeks ago and got some good info here on the list:
Quote from Tormod:
This works, but we have changed to not installing memcached as a service using the "-d install" switch. This gives no flexibility to install other instances or to change paramaters like port or memory without fiddling directly in the Registry after install.
Instead we use the built in "sc" tool in Windows to manage services.
This is what must be run to install one instance:
sc create memcached11211 binPath= "C:\Admin\memcached_runtime\memcached.exe -d runservice -p 11211 -m 2048" start= auto DisplayName= "MemCached 11211"
Just repeat for more instances on the same machine by changing the port number in the servicename, the actual port after the "-p" and the DisplayName parameter.
Enjoy!
Stephen
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Matthew Drayer < mdrayer@...> wrote:
Hi there,
Just wondering if someone can point me in the direction of a resource describing how to configure multiple instances of Memcached on a single Windows 2003 server.
Thanks!
Matt
|
|
RE: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Hi Stephen,
Thanks very much for the info. I did have to change one small thing (quotes needed
around the service name), but overall this worked great. I was able to quickly
create three 128MB instances like so:
C:\>sc create
"Memcached11211" binPath= "C:\Program
Files\Memcached\1_2_4\memcached.exe -d runservice -p 11211 -m 128"
DisplayName= "Memcached11211" start= auto
C:\>sc create "Memcached11212"
binPath= "C:\Program Files\Memcached\1_2_4\memcached.exe -d runservice -p
11212 -m 128" DisplayName= "Memcached11212" start= auto
C:\>sc create "Memcached11213"
binPath= "C:\Program Files\Memcached\1_2_4\memcached.exe -d runservice -p
11213 -m 128" DisplayName= "Memcached11213" start= auto
Cheers,
Matt
From: Stephen Johnston
[mailto:stephen.johnston@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 3:24
PM
To: Matthew Drayer
Cc: memcached@...
Subject: Re: Multi-instance on
Win2K3?
I had asked about some things related to this a few weeks ago and got
some good info here on the list:
This works, but we have changed to not installing memcached as a
service using the "-d install" switch. This gives no flexibility to
install other instances or to change paramaters like port or memory without
fiddling directly in the Registry after install.
Instead we use the built in "sc" tool in Windows to manage
services.
This is what must be run to install one instance:
sc create memcached11211 binPath=
"C:\Admin\memcached_runtime\memcached.exe -d runservice -p 11211 -m
2048" start= auto DisplayName= "MemCached 11211"
Just repeat for more instances on the same machine by changing the port
number in the servicename, the actual port after the "-p" and the
DisplayName parameter.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Matthew Drayer <mdrayer@...> wrote:
Hi
there,
Just
wondering if someone can point me in the direction of a resource describing how
to configure multiple instances of Memcached on a single Windows 2003 server.
Thanks!
Matt
|
|
 Re: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Are there advantages to creating three 128 MB instances, compared to a single 384 MB instance? Adam ----- Original Message ---- From: Matthew Drayer < mdrayer@...> To: Stephen Johnston < stephen.johnston@...> Cc: memcached@...Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 2:51:41 PM Subject: RE: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
Hi Stephen,
Thanks very much for the info. I did have to change one small thing (quotes needed
around the service name), but overall this worked great. I was able to quickly
create three 128MB instances like so:
C:\>sc create
"Memcached11211" binPath= "C:\Program
Files\Memcached\1_2_4\memcached.exe -d runservice -p 11211 -m 128"
DisplayName= "Memcached11211" start= auto
C:\>sc create "Memcached11212"
binPath= "C:\Program Files\Memcached\1_2_4\memcached.exe -d runservice -p
11212 -m 128" DisplayName= "Memcached11212" start= auto
C:\>sc create "Memcached11213"
binPath= "C:\Program Files\Memcached\1_2_4\memcached.exe -d runservice -p
11213 -m 128" DisplayName= "Memcached11213" start= auto
Cheers,
Matt
From: Stephen Johnston
[mailto:stephen.johnston@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 3:24
PM
To: Matthew Drayer
Cc: memcached@...
Subject: Re: Multi-instance on
Win2K3?
I had asked about some things related to this a few weeks ago and got
some good info here on the list:
This works, but we have changed to not installing memcached as a
service using the "-d install" switch. This gives no flexibility to
install other instances or to change paramaters like port or memory without
fiddling directly in the Registry after install.
Instead we use the built in "sc" tool in Windows to manage
services.
This is what must be run to install one instance:
sc create memcached11211 binPath=
"C:\Admin\memcached_runtime\memcached.exe -d runservice -p 11211 -m
2048" start= auto DisplayName= "MemCached 11211"
Just repeat for more instances on the same machine by changing the port
number in the servicename, the actual port after the "-p" and the
DisplayName parameter.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Matthew Drayer <mdrayer@...> wrote:
Hi
there,
Just
wondering if someone can point me in the direction of a resource describing how
to configure multiple instances of Memcached on a single Windows 2003 server.
Thanks!
Matt
|
|
RE: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Probably not at such a low level, no J but, this was more for
a proof-of-concept to show my team how it might work. I assume we’ll
only distribute out if we find we’re pushing the limits of RAM or CPU
utilization.
Matt
From: Adam Allgaier
[mailto:allgaier2@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:14
PM
To: Matthew Drayer
Subject: Re: Multi-instance on
Win2K3?
Are there advantages to
creating three 128 MB instances, compared to a single 384 MB instance?
Adam
----- Original Message
----
From: Matthew Drayer <mdrayer@...>
To: Stephen Johnston <stephen.johnston@...>
Cc: memcached@...
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 2:51:41 PM
Subject: RE: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
Hi Stephen,
Thanks very much for the info. I did have to change one small thing
(quotes needed around the service name), but overall this worked great. I
was able to quickly create three 128MB instances like so:
C:\>sc create
"Memcached11211" binPath= "C:\Program
Files\Memcached\1_2_4\memcached.exe -d runservice -p 11211 -m 128"
DisplayName= "Memcached11211" start= auto
C:\>sc create
"Memcached11212" binPath= "C:\Program
Files\Memcached\1_2_4\memcached.exe -d runservice -p 11212 -m 128"
DisplayName= "Memcached11212" start= auto
C:\>sc create
"Memcached11213" binPath= "C:\Program
Files\Memcached\1_2_4\memcached.exe -d runservice -p 11213 -m 128"
DisplayName= "Memcached11213" start= auto
Cheers,
Matt
From: Stephen Johnston
[mailto:stephen.johnston@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 3:24
PM
To: Matthew Drayer
Cc: memcached@...
Subject: Re: Multi-instance on
Win2K3?
I had asked about some things related to this a few weeks ago and got
some good info here on the list:
This works, but we have changed to not installing memcached as a
service using the "-d install" switch. This gives no flexibility to install
other instances or to change paramaters like port or memory without fiddling
directly in the Registry after install.
Instead we use the built in "sc" tool in Windows to manage
services.
This is what must be run to install one instance:
sc create memcached11211 binPath=
"C:\Admin\memcached_runtime\memcached.exe -d runservice -p 11211 -m
2048" start= auto DisplayName= "MemCached 11211"
Just repeat for more instances on the same machine by changing the port
number in the servicename, the actual port after the "-p" and the
DisplayName parameter.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Matthew Drayer <mdrayer@...> wrote:
Hi
there,
Just
wondering if someone can point me in the direction of a resource describing how
to configure multiple instances of Memcached on a single Windows 2003 server.
Thanks!
Matt
|
|
Re: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
I think that CPU is rarely why people do this. From what I've seen and read there are a few common cases:
1. You have 384mb on one machine and 128mb on another available. You make 4 instances so their eviction pattern is similar and the client can treat them as identical, and your expected behavior for them will be similar, and write across them equally without a 384mb <-> 128mb pair of server causing wierd imbalances. The clients that I have seen don't take cache size into account when considering which instance to use.
2. You have a situation where you store items with no delete time (they live for ever), but you have limited memory. your no delete time items are expensive to recreate. You also have alot of less expensive items to recreate that may lead to your expensive ones being evicted. You use one instance sized for the items that live forever and another for the ongoing "evictable" items.
I'm sure others have some use cases, but those are the two I've seen mentioned commonly.
-Stephen
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Matthew Drayer < mdrayer@...> wrote:
Probably not at such a low level, no J but, this was more for a proof-of-concept to show my team how it might work. I assume we'll only distribute out if we find we're pushing the limits of RAM or CPU utilization.
Matt
|
|
RE: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
So, most likely our official deployment
will be to a 64bit Linux machine which would initially have 2GB of RAM and two monster
CPUs. If situation #2 isn’t an issue, would it be best to run a single
instance of Memcached, or split the RAM into two instances?
From: Stephen Johnston
[mailto:stephen.johnston@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:26
PM
To: Matthew Drayer
Cc: memcached@...
Subject: Re: Multi-instance on
Win2K3?
I think that CPU is rarely why people do this. From what I've seen and
read there are a few common cases:
1. You have 384mb on one machine and 128mb on another available. You
make 4 instances so their eviction pattern is similar and the client can treat
them as identical, and your expected behavior for them will be
similar, and write across them equally without a 384mb <-> 128mb
pair of server causing wierd imbalances. The clients that I have seen don't
take cache size into account when considering which instance to use.
2. You have a situation where you store items with no delete time
(they live for ever), but you have limited memory. your no delete time items
are expensive to recreate. You also have alot of less expensive items to recreate
that may lead to your expensive ones being evicted. You use one instance sized
for the items that live forever and another for the ongoing
"evictable" items.
I'm sure others have some use cases, but those are the two I've seen
mentioned commonly.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Matthew Drayer <mdrayer@...> wrote:
Probably not at such a low level, no J but, this was more
for a proof-of-concept to show my team how it might work. I assume we'll
only distribute out if we find we're pushing the limits of RAM or CPU
utilization.
Matt
|
|
Re: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
2008/7/1 Stephen Johnston < stephen.johnston@...>:
> I think that CPU is rarely why people do this. From what I've seen and read
> there are a few common cases:
Another case is if memcached crashes or must be restarted (for example
due to some critical bugfix). Sometimes it is very painful to restart
one instance with few GBs of cached data, it is better to have a
couple if instances with less data that can be restarted one at a
time. But this depends on what is cached and how painful it is when
the cache is lost.
--
Janusz Dziemidowicz
|
|
Re: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
Hi Matthew, Kinda derailing here, but are you only going to run memcached on that server? If so, you really do not need the CPU power, spend the money on RAM instead. /Henrik Schröder
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Drayer < mdrayer@...> wrote:
So, most likely our official deployment
will be to a 64bit Linux machine which would initially have 2GB of RAM and two monster
CPUs. If situation #2 isn't an issue, would it be best to run a single
instance of Memcached, or split the RAM into two instances?
From: Stephen Johnston
[mailto:stephen.johnston@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:26
PM
To: Matthew Drayer
Cc: memcached@...
Subject: Re: Multi-instance on
Win2K3?
I think that CPU is rarely why people do this. From what I've seen and
read there are a few common cases:
1. You have 384mb on one machine and 128mb on another available. You
make 4 instances so their eviction pattern is similar and the client can treat
them as identical, and your expected behavior for them will be
similar, and write across them equally without a 384mb <-> 128mb
pair of server causing wierd imbalances. The clients that I have seen don't
take cache size into account when considering which instance to use.
2. You have a situation where you store items with no delete time
(they live for ever), but you have limited memory. your no delete time items
are expensive to recreate. You also have alot of less expensive items to recreate
that may lead to your expensive ones being evicted. You use one instance sized
for the items that live forever and another for the ongoing
"evictable" items.
I'm sure others have some use cases, but those are the two I've seen
mentioned commonly.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Matthew Drayer <mdrayer@...> wrote:
Probably not at such a low level, no J but, this was more
for a proof-of-concept to show my team how it might work. I assume we'll
only distribute out if we find we're pushing the limits of RAM or CPU
utilization.
Matt
|
|
RE: Multi-instance on Win2K3?
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Yep, this will be a dedicated server for
Memcached. It’s most likely going to be a virtual server, and I think
the 2xCPU / 2xGB is a standard template for our Systems group, so it’s
actually easier for them to deploy an instance this way. Couple clicks and it’s
ready to go.
From: Henrik Schröder
[mailto:skrolle@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:07
PM
To: Matthew Drayer
Cc: memcached@...
Subject: Re: Multi-instance on
Win2K3?
Hi Matthew,
Kinda derailing here, but are you only going to run memcached on that server?
If so, you really do not need the CPU power, spend the money on RAM instead.
/Henrik Schröder
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Drayer <mdrayer@...> wrote:
So, most likely our official deployment will be to a 64bit
Linux machine which would initially have 2GB of RAM and two monster CPUs.
If situation #2 isn't an issue, would it be best to run a single instance of
Memcached, or split the RAM into two instances?
From: Stephen Johnston [mailto:stephen.johnston@...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:26
PM
To: Matthew Drayer
Cc: memcached@...
Subject: Re: Multi-instance on
Win2K3?
I think
that CPU is rarely why people do this. From what I've seen and read there are a
few common cases:
1. You
have 384mb on one machine and 128mb on another available. You make 4 instances
so their eviction pattern is similar and the client can treat them as
identical, and your expected behavior for them will be similar, and write
across them equally without a 384mb <-> 128mb pair of server causing
wierd imbalances. The clients that I have seen don't take cache size into
account when considering which instance to use.
2. You
have a situation where you store items with no delete time (they live for
ever), but you have limited memory. your no delete time items are expensive to
recreate. You also have alot of less expensive items to recreate that may lead
to your expensive ones being evicted. You use one instance sized for the items
that live forever and another for the ongoing "evictable" items.
I'm sure
others have some use cases, but those are the two I've seen mentioned commonly.
On Tue,
Jul 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Matthew Drayer <mdrayer@...>
wrote:
Probably not at such a low level, no J but, this was more
for a proof-of-concept to show my team how it might work. I assume we'll
only distribute out if we find we're pushing the limits of RAM or CPU
utilization.
Matt
|
