Portability of server and clients

[alex-173]

Is there anyone recording which platforms the server and various clients
can be built on?

It seems a bit hit and miss right now.

[RayKrueger]

Clients are developed independent of the server and they can be
written in any language. Therefore clients can truly run on any
platform. Memcached itself is probably friendliest towards the posix
environments but it has been ported to run on Windows as well.

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:18 AM,  <alex@...> wrote:
> Is there anyone recording which platforms the server and various clients
> can be built on?
>
> It seems a bit hit and miss right now.
>
>

[alex-173]

> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:18 AM,  <alex> wrote:
>> Is there anyone recording which platforms the server and various clients
>> can be built on?


Ray wrote:
> Clients are developed independent of the server and they can be
> written in any language. Therefore clients can truly run on any
> platform. Memcached itself is probably friendliest towards the posix
> environments but it has been ported to run on Windows as well.


So a 64 bit client can access a 32 bit memcached with no problems? vice
versa?

I am interested to know which platforms the clients have been tested on.
Nothing seems to collate this data right now. Presumably people find a
client that works for them and dont bother sharing this information.

Alex

[RayKrueger]

The wonders of open source my friend :)
Try the client that best suits your needs and test it out. If you find
a problem; submitting a patch is great, but simply opening a bug would
do fine.
I've never had a problem going from 32bit to 64bit, but that's just
me. You should definitely do your own testing and validation to be
sure.

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:11 AM,  <alex@...> wrote:

>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:18 AM,  <alex> wrote:
>>> Is there anyone recording which platforms the server and various clients
>>> can be built on?
>
>
> Ray wrote:
>> Clients are developed independent of the server and they can be
>> written in any language. Therefore clients can truly run on any
>> platform. Memcached itself is probably friendliest towards the posix
>> environments but it has been ported to run on Windows as well.
>
>
> So a 64 bit client can access a 32 bit memcached with no problems? vice
> versa?
>
> I am interested to know which platforms the clients have been tested on.
> Nothing seems to collate this data right now. Presumably people find a
> client that works for them and dont bother sharing this information.
>
> Alex
>
>
>

[Henrik Schröder-3]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:11 PM, <alex@...> wrote:

So a 64 bit client can access a 32 bit memcached with no problems? vice
versa?

Yes, it's a text protocol.
 

I am interested to know which platforms the clients have been tested on.
Nothing seems to collate this data right now. Presumably people find a
client that works for them and dont bother sharing this information.

This doesn't make much sense, people choose clients depending on which programming language they are using, not which platform they are using. Platform compatibility is simply not an issue for a client written in PHP, Java, Perl or C# or Ruby or whatever.


/Henrik Schröder

[Paul McGrath-3]

Henrik - thats a little naive!

Alex poses a reasonable question IMHO.

perl has to be compiled - which means that there's a specific C/C++ environment to consider.

Java 32-bit or Java 64-bit - platform compatability is an issue for example for - Firefox, GWT, Google Gears and Eclipse (in fact anything that uses native windowing toolkits or links against native shared object libraries)


The question is reasonable when you also consider that I can't get Cache::Memcached::Fast to work on a Solaris 10 x86 box - but it works fine on a OpenSuse 10.3 x86 box.  (Large proportion of build tests fail - get/set non-deterministic behaviour).

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Henrik Schröder <skrolle@...> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:11 PM, <alex@...> wrote:

So a 64 bit client can access a 32 bit memcached with no problems? vice
versa?

Yes, it's a text protocol.
 

I am interested to know which platforms the clients have been tested on.
Nothing seems to collate this data right now. Presumably people find a
client that works for them and dont bother sharing this information.

This doesn't make much sense, people choose clients depending on which programming language they are using, not which platform they are using. Platform compatibility is simply not an issue for a client written in PHP, Java, Perl or C# or Ruby or whatever.


/Henrik Schröder

[alex-173]

Henrik wrote:
> Platform compatibility is simply not an issue for a client written in PHP,
> Java, Perl or C# or Ruby or whatever.

That may be true for Java and I cant comment on C# or Ruby.
However the pure perl based client is not very fast. I have been trying to
compile one of the C based perl modules without much success. The PHP
module is also written in C and so may not work perfectly on all
platforms.

As I am not an expert in memcached it is very difficult to see the cause
of a C compiled client misbehaving. The problem might be

a) me not understanding
b) me not building the client correctly
c) a bug in the client
d) a bug in the server


A simple list saying "I have gotten this working on platform XYZ" would
help eliminate some of these options.

[Henrik Schröder-3]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:20 PM, <alex@...> wrote:

That may be true for Java and I cant comment on C# or Ruby.
However the pure perl based client is not very fast. I have been trying to
compile one of the C based perl modules without much success. The PHP
module is also written in C and so may not work perfectly on all
platforms.

Oh, I was under the assumption that the non-C-based client were the absolutely most common ones, and when you just talked about clients in general, you weren't talking about the C-based ones. Sorry about that. :-)
 

As I am not an expert in memcached it is very difficult to see the cause
of a C compiled client misbehaving. The problem might be

I would assume they are all POSIX-compatible, which means that they won't work under windows out of the box for example, and your specific platform may just be badly supported or completely untested.

A simple list saying "I have gotten this working on platform XYZ" would
help eliminate some of these options.

I'm slightly confused, why didn't you just ask "has anyone gotten client X working on platform Y?" instead of asking for a list that's very uncommon in the open source world, and hoping that people would put that together so that you hopefully might find your client/platform combination on it? It seems pretty backwards to me, that's all. :-)

I can of course see the usefulness of such a list, I just think it'd be incredibly difficult to maintain. Would you be interested in maintaining such a list?


/Henrik Schröder

[Dormando]

If you're having trouble building a specific client on a specific
platform, you can contact the authors, mail the list, or try on irc at
freenode. Even if a platform isn't supported yet, it's usually helpful
for client authors to hear what platforms people are trying to use, so
they may add support later.

-Dormando

> That may be true for Java and I cant comment on C# or Ruby.
> However the pure perl based client is not very fast. I have been trying to
> compile one of the C based perl modules without much success. The PHP
> module is also written in C and so may not work perfectly on all
> platforms.
>
> As I am not an expert in memcached it is very difficult to see the cause
> of a C compiled client misbehaving. The problem might be
>
> a) me not understanding
> b) me not building the client correctly
> c) a bug in the client
> d) a bug in the server
>
>
> A simple list saying "I have gotten this working on platform XYZ" would
> help eliminate some of these options.
>
>
>