On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Hi, I read this in the documentation:
This module is an addition to the existing htable functionality, not a replacement. In smaller architectures or installations where only one instance needs access to the hash table this module is easier to setup, as no dedicated server needs to be provided. But when a distributed storage facilility is necessary, or one want to separate the storage from the SIP server, this module could be used.
Perhaps you could clarify in which case is better using htable or memcached? I understand that htable (not distributed but in local memory) is more suitable for a simple installation while memcached allow varios servers accessing to the same storege.
If I'm right, sould the text be a bit improved? :)
Hi Iñaki,
thanks. Yes, you're right, this text could be improved. :-) I'll rephrase it a bit.
Cheers,
Henning