5 ms·
True. Keydb tackled the same problems as us. But we chose differrent paths. We decided to go for a complete redesign, feeling that there is a critical mass of i
by romange 4y ago
True. Keydb tackled the same problems as us. But we chose differrent paths. We decided to go for a complete redesign, feeling that there is a critical mass of innovation out there that can be applied for inmemory store. KeyDb wanted to stay close with the source and be able to integrate quickly with recent developments in Redis. Both paths have their own pros and cons.
- manigandham 4y agoI see from the blog posts that you looked at KeyDB and Scylla/Seastar for background. I agree with both approaches - fewer but bigger instances and shared-nothing thread-per-core architecture - and it was a major reason for switching to ScyllaDB in my previous startup. Will definitely follow this to see how it develops. Good luck.
- romange 4y agoThanks!