But shouldn't locmem be considered in the case of a small relatively-static dataset being accessed: such as configurations or something similar? supposing the entire dataset to be cached is 1MB and you're running 9 process, then that's an overhead of 9MB...wouldn't local memory access be more performant than a remote service access? This may be an edge case but could lead to serious performance implications in different scenarios: for example if you're looking up 10 different configurations for each request..
Lonnen, like any global container means the memory has to be "duplicated" per process. With 4 CPUs you might have 9 separate processes and thus 9x the amount of memory usage on the whole server.
Not only are you storing the same piece of data 9 times you also have possibly 8 cache misses. Definitely more performant than a remote service but a cache server on localhost is just as performant.
Comment
But shouldn't locmem be considered in the case of a small relatively-static dataset being accessed: such as configurations or something similar? supposing the entire dataset to be cached is 1MB and you're running 9 process, then that's an overhead of 9MB...wouldn't local memory access be more performant than a remote service access? This may be an edge case but could lead to serious performance implications in different scenarios: for example if you're looking up 10 different configurations for each request..
Parent comment
Lonnen, like any global container means the memory has to be "duplicated" per process. With 4 CPUs you might have 9 separate processes and thus 9x the amount of memory usage on the whole server.
Replies
Not only are you storing the same piece of data 9 times you also have possibly 8 cache misses.
Definitely more performant than a remote service but a cache server on localhost is just as performant.