多网络服务器配置的缓存解决方案？
我正在研究用于多网络服务器配置的缓存解决方案。 memcached 被认为很便宜（免费），并且多年来得到了证明。 微软还在为网络场开发一个缓存解决方案，名为 Velocity，但是这仍然在 CTP2 中。
I am looking into caching solutions, for a multi webserver configuration. Thought of memcached as being cheap (free) and proven over the years. Microsoft is also developing a caching solution for webfarms, called Velocity, but this is still in CTP2.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
配置服务中使用了分布式缓存模型，该模型是 .NET 的一部分Stocktrader 示例应用程序。 这是一个允许您运行多个节点并具有集中配置管理、负载平衡和分布式缓存的框架。 您可以按原样实现配置服务，也可以查看代码并获取适合您的内容。 值得一看。
There is a distributed caching model used in the configuration service that is part of the .NET Stocktrader sample application. This is a framework that allows you to run multiple nodes with centralised configuration management, load balancing and distributed caching. You can implement the configuration service as is or look through the code and grab what suits you. Worth a look.
当我听 Scott Hanselman 对 StackOverflow 团队的播客采访时，我留下的印象是： 他们确实使用了某种缓存，b． 他们对自己在这方面所做的事情几乎一无所知，只是摆弄了一些选项，然后写了一两篇博客文章。
他们目前似乎半心半意地使用客户端缓存（例如，图像的过期时间很短），而且我认为他们使用了大量 ASP.NET 用户模式缓存，而且我无法判断他们是否使用 IIS内核模式缓存。 （他们似乎也无法告诉斯科特这一点。）
然而，播客已经有一段时间了，而且我当时正在开车，所以我的记忆可能是错误的和/或过时的。
When I listened to Scott Hanselman's podcast interview with the StackOverflow team, I was left with the impressions that a. they did use some kind of caching and b. they knew almost nothing about what they were doing in this respect and had fiddled with a few options and then written a blog post or two.
They currently seem to use client-side caching rather half-heartedly (short expiry times on images, for example), and I think they use a lot of ASP.NET user-mode caching, and I can't tell if they use IIS kernel-mode caching. (They didn't seem to be able to tell Scott that, either.)
However, the podcast was a while back, and I was driving at the time, so my memory might be wrong and/or out of date.
在引入像 memcached 这样的东西之前你应该认真思考。
我并不是说不要这样做，但在做之前要三思而后行。
如果你可以通过添加几个*额外的机器（我认为 stackoverflow 可以）来获得足够的性能，那么就这样做并且不用担心缓存。 从长远来看，它会便宜得多。
*注意我不是说 100 台机器。
You should think HARD before bringing in something like memcached.
I'm not saying don't do it, but think HARD before you do.
If you can get enough performance by adding a couple* of extra machines (which I think stackoverflow can) then do that and don't worry about caching. It'll be much cheaper in the long run.
*note I don't say 100 machines.