4 ms·

Well, no; if they're using memcachedb presumably their data doesn't fit in memory on a single machine. Cassandra would be a better choice. /cassandra committe

• jedberg 17y ago
  We actually looked at Cassandra and found it to be slower than memcachedb. However, we readily admit that we probably configured it wrong.
  • jbellis 17y ago
    Hard to say, but we increased speed pretty much across the board about 50% from 0.4 to 0.4.2, by 50% (compounded :) to 0.5, and looking at 100% already for release-after-0.5... and we're ready to help configure on IRC :) (Also, I'm not sure when you were looking at it, but bootstrap -- adding nodes without any downtime -- is done now.)
• antirez 17y ago
  When Redis is used as a persistent cache, the clients implementing consistent hashing are perfect fit for a distributed-redis, as you don't need all this data safeness. You can lose a node if there is a disaster without too much problems usually (like it happens in memcached), but you want, in normal conditions, that the cache is not volatile.
  • jbellis 17y ago
    It sounded like they want to use it as more of a "real" database than a cache, since rebuilding data in case of a hardware failure is so painful. <shrug>