The business scenario requires:
50M key-value pairs, 2K each , 100G memory in total.
About 40% of key-value will change in a second.
The Java application need Get() once and set() once for each changed pair, it will be 50M*40%*2=4M qps (query per second) .
We tested memcached - which shows very limited qps.
Our benchmarking is very similar to results showed here
http://xmemcached.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/benchmark/benchmark.html
10,000 around qps is the limitation of one memcached server.
That mean we need 40 partitioned memcached servers in our business scenario- which seems very uneconomic and unrealistic.
In your experience, is the benchmarking accurate in term of memcached’s designed performance?
Any suggestion to tune memcached system(client or server)?
Or any other alternative memory store system that is able meet the requirement more economically?
Many thanks in advance!
