Tell HN: We've built a high-performance persistent cache engine

Re:Tell HN: We've built a high-performance persistent cache ... by shin_lao on Saturday February 26, 2011 @10:07AM (#2265661)

Basically wrpme is currently like memcachedb. We don't have some features such as atomic increments and the like at the moment (and we may never have them).

We're much faster than memcached on a multi-processor machine but we're working on a meaningful benchmark. It would be easy to produce a benchmark where we're 10 x faster and that would demonstrate nothing.

We aim at being faster in all usecases. Show us when we are slower and we will fix it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tell HN: We've built a high-performance persistent cache ... by petervandijck on Monday February 28, 2011 @08:32AM (#2271118)

In what ways are you better than memcachedb? Since they're free and you're not?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tell HN: We've built a high-performance persistent cache ... by shin_lao on Monday February 28, 2011 @11:56AM (#2271824)

Objective reasons:

- faster (especially on 64-bit multiprocessor machines)

- works on Windows out of the box

- scalable on multi-processor machines

- support

Download a version and see for yourself!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tell HN: We've built a high-performance persistent cache ... by petervandijck on Monday February 28, 2011 @12:47PM (#2272047)

How does it compare to membase?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tell HN: We've built a high-performance persistent cache ... by shin_lao on Thursday March 03, 2011 @01:38PM (#2285173)

membase is based on memcache afaik

[ Parent | on HN ]