3 ms·
I wonder if switching from memcached to redis would make a bottom line difference in terms of the number of instances needed (cost) and performance?
by nodesocket 10y ago
I wonder if switching from memcached to redis would make a bottom line difference in terms of the number of instances needed (cost) and performance?
- deedubaya 10y agoMaybe a difference in performance, but caching comes down to bits-to-be-stored. That likely wouldn't change.
- nodesocket 10y agoPerhaps they are already doing it, but couldn't they use client side compression as well?
- cookiecaper 10y agoredis does have some built-in features that automatically compact data. [0] I'm sure reddit has considered this, but worth noting. [0] https://redis.io/topics/memory-optimization https://redis.io/topics/memory-optimization
- sgmansfield 10y agoclient-side compression works out better for a couple of reasons: 1. You use less bandwidth in/out of the box. This matters in AWS because your bandwidth is (relatively) limited. 2. Your CPU usage to (de)compress is distributed over a larger fleet. The clients spend the CPU time, not the cache servers.
- cookiecaper 10y agoI thought the same thing. I stuck with memcached for quite a while because I didn't see a real reason to switch to redis, but after hitting some repeated annoyances with memcached, I gave redis a try and very happy I did. It's much better. Is memcached even maintained anymore?
- sgmansfield 10y agoYeah it absolutely is. In fact, there's been tons of large improvements as of late, with more coming.