Can anyone offer an opinion on handlersocket vs memcached performance in MySQL 5.6 I must say I was a little mis(un)-informed about the MySQL Memcached plugin which offers the same NoSQL like access to InnoDB tables as HandlerSocket, I had only had experience with entirely standalone memcached servers in cacheing scenarios.

We're using HandlerSocket quite heavily, as it provided a massive increase in IO, and from the original papers on the subject (at the time), it was actually faster than traditional memcached access, thus why we pursued it.

However in learning that the new memcache plugin serves the same purpose now, I went searching for benchmarks, comparisons, or even cock-eyed opinion, but wasn't able to find any specifically addressing both.  

I'd like to know if anyone has had experience with both, switched to/from either and what their experiences were?
I would recommend using InnoDB memcached over Handlersocket.  The advantage of InnoDB memcached is that:


It uses a standard memcached protocol, with drivers available for many programming languages.
It does not automatically allow access to all tables in your database, but instead tables 'opt-in' via a mapping containers table.
It has a stated support policy of 8 years.  MySQL 5.6/5.7 support already exists for InnoDB memcached, and these version upgrades are required to unlock many of the scalability enhancements.