[chef] Re: RE: Re: Memcached on a separate node?

[Noah Kantrowitz < >]

The code looks a bit wonky, not sure why it only adds the current node if it 
matches when length==0, seems like a bug to me? Other than that it shouldn't 
be required to be another node.

--Noah

On Dec 4, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Warren Bain wrote:

> Noah,
> 
> Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well or I don't understand your reply 
> :)
> 
> The cookbook looks for a node that has whatever the role is called and 
> which isn't this node i.e. has to be a different node to the app server.  
> See here:
> 
> https://github.com/opscode-cookbooks/application_ruby/blob/master/providers/memcached.rb#L28
> 
> Wazza
> ________________________________________
> From: Noah Kantrowitz 
> 
 
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012 10:07 AM
> To: 
> 
 
> Subject: [chef] Re: Memcached on a separate node?
> 
> You just have to give it a role, there is no reason that role can't be 
> "www" or some such :-)
> 
> --Noah
> 
> On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Warren Bain wrote:
> 
>> We are using the application cookbook to do Rails deployments.
>> 
>> I'm wondering about the logic around memcached which requires a separate 
>> node that is not the app node to be set up as a memcached master.  I'm not 
>> expert in this area at all but the common wisdom from our Rails developers 
>> is that memcached should be on the app server, not a separate vm which 
>> would seem to defeat the purpose.  In particular we are doing deployments 
>> across availability zones so the network costs is higher than on a same 
>> physical host vm.
>> 
>> Can someone in OpsCode explain why separate memcached node is the model?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Wazza