Home | Forums | SDKs | SDKs

ASCII vs BINARY perfornance issue with php memcached ext

2 replies [Last post]
Tue, 01/31/2012 - 02:25
piavlo
Offline
Joined: 09/15/2011
Groups: None

Hi,

I've noticed that the php memcached ext works much slower (at least x5 times slower) then BINARY protocol is enabled then working with coucbase/membase server.
Then working against memcached server both ASCII and BINARY have about the same performance.

Also i tried working with couchbase php ext - but it's performance is much slower than memcached ext. Progably since is couchbase ext is smart and needs to initialise and maintain cluster vbuckets mappings. So I ended up using moxi standalone server with memcached ext. Though I'd be glad to get rid of moxi.
BUT does it make sense to use a smart client as php extension if the connection is destroyed once http request ends - looks to me like a huge overhead of initializing cluster state for each new http request on app side. Offloading it to moxi is much better , no?

Thanks
Alex

Top
Tue, 02/28/2012 - 00:52
piavlo
Offline
Joined: 09/15/2011
Groups: None

???

Top
Mon, 03/05/2012 - 12:12
jan
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2011
Groups: None

Hi Alex,

sorry for the slow reply.

In our testing ext/couchbase is about 2x faster than ext/memcached. ext/couchbase does not support the ascii protocol and it can't work on raw memcached instances.

ext/couchbase now supports persistent connections that survive the HTTP teardown, so only the initial connection per process should take longer, all subsequent requests should be really fast.

Cheers
Jan
--

Top