Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Right now we have 2 servers.

  1. webserver + memcached
  2. mysql server

the mysql server is a new and a strong server and it is not being utilized fully. I was debating if I should migrate the memcached to the mysql server or If I should order a seperate box and keep all 3 seperate. Are there any best practices you guys can suggest as to how this should be implemented? webserver/memcached + mysql server or webserver + mysql/memcached server?


share|improve this question

migrated from Aug 1 '11 at 5:04

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

Better keep MySQL server for itself and give a MySQL daemon, say, 50-80% of available memory for buffers etc.

Having memcached hogging expensive memory from the MySQL daemon is pointless and essentially a waste of resources.

Well, it's all depends on your actual usage patterns. For example, if you have huge databases which does not ever able to fit into memory (you're disk bound) and/or heavy under-optimized queries you may actually benefit from having additional memcached instance running on the database server.

share|improve this answer

It's all a big "it depends". If you're not using all the resources on a box, you can stick multiple services on there without a problem. On the other hand, if you're planning on growth, it might be best to have a separate memcached box (or just stick more RAM in your webserver) so you don't get caught short when load picks up and you need to scramble (that is, unless you're far above average at capacity planning and can have a decent idea of when you'll need to scale up).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.