Is it necessary for memcached to replicate its data?

Question

I understand that memcached is a distributed caching system. However, is it entirely necessary for memcached to replicate? The objective is to persist sessions in a clustered environment.

For example if we have memcached running on say 2 servers, both with data on it, and server #1 goes down, could we potentially lose session data that was stored on it? In other words, what should we expect to see happen should any memcached server (storing data) goes down and how would it affect our sessions in a clustered environment?

At the end of the day, will it be up to use to add some fault tolerance to our application? For example, if the key doesn't exist possibly because one of the servers it was on went down, re-query and store back to memcached?

From what I'm reading, it appears to lean in this direction but would like confirmation: https://developers.google.com/appengine/articles/scaling/memcache#transient

Thanks in advance!

Answer 1

Memcached has it's own fault tolerance built in so you don't need to add it to your application. I think providing an example will show why this is the case. Let's say you have 2 memcached servers set up in front of your database (let's say it's mysql). Initially when you start your application there will be nothing in memcached. When your application needs to get data if will first check in memcached and if it doesn't exist then it will read the data from the database and insert it into memcached before returning it to the user. For writes you will make sure that you insert the data into both your database and memcached. As you application continues to run it will populate the memcached servers with a bunch of data and take load off of your database.

Now one of your memcached servers crashes and you lose half of your cached data. What will happen is that your application will now be going to the database more frequently right after the crash and your application logic will continue to insert data into memcached except everything will go directly to the server that didn't crash. The only consequence here is that your cache is smaller and your database might need to do a little bit more work if everything doesn't fit into the cache. Your memcached client should also be able to handle the crash since it will be able to figure out where your remaining healthy memcached servers are and it will automatically hash values into them accordingly. So in short you don't need any extra logic for failure situations in memcached since the memcached client should take care of this for you. You just need to understand that memcached servers going down might mean your database has to do a lot of extra work. I also wouldn't recommend re-populating the cache after a failure. Just let the cache warm itself back up since there's no point in loading items that you aren't going to use in the near future.

m03geek also made a post where he mentioned that you could also use Couchbase and this is true, but I want to add a few things to his response about what the pros and cons are. First off Couchbase has two bucket (database) types and these are the Memcached Bucket and the Couchbase Bucket. The Memcached bucket is plain memcached and everything I wrote above is valid for this bucket. The only reasons you might want to go with Couchbase if you are going to use the memcached bucket are that you get a nice web ui which will provide stats about your memcached cluster along with ease of use of adding and removing servers. You can also get paid support down the road for Couchbase.

The Couchbase bucket is totally different in that it is not a cache, but an actual database. You can completely drop your backend database and just use this bucket type. One nice thing about the Couchbase bucket is that it provides replication and therefore prevents the cold cache problem that memcached has. I would suggest reading the Couchbase documentation if this sounds interesting you you since there are a lot of feature you get with the Couchbase bucket.

This paper about how Facebook uses memcached might be interesting too. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi13/nsdi13-final170_update.pdf