5 ms·

The patch provided does not handle persistence correctly (saving blocks), does not make tests passing. The "libuv" part was the trivial part, already solved by

by antirez 15y ago

The patch provided does not handle persistence correctly (saving blocks), does not make tests passing. The "libuv" part was the trivial part, already solved by the community, see the unofficial win32/win64 port that fixed it natively, with less code. So nice to see Microsoft contributing code to Redis, but this is not a production ready port and is practically equivalent to what we already had made by the community. Also, what is the point on having a production quality Redis server on Windows? That it will slow down the Redis POSIX development if we merge the two projects, the WIN32 API is different, there is a lot of care needed to maintain a port, but what is the real gain? Even services based on Windows like Stack Overflow had no issues running their Linux boxes to use Redis. I've the bad habit of doing the interest of the Redis community, so once I saw there was a reasonable port of Redis for win32 (that is, enough to code under Windows and test stuff, no production ready) I avoided additional efforts in this regard to provide more value in the "real" Redis, the one running where 99.99% of people need it to run well, under POSIX environments. EDIT: I was not clear in this post about what I'll do. I'll not merge the patch, but I'll see with interest the creation of a "redis-win32" project that has a different repository, different issues page, and so forth, and is not officially supported by me. But I'll be happy to provide a page in the redis.io site about it, to link at the project, to collaborate with the developers, and so forth.

skrebbel 15y ago
> Also, what is the point on having a production quality Redis server on Windows? I (co-)run a small bootstrapped startup running on a Windows server. We're considering to use Redis as our primary (only) database. For us, the simple ability to run Redis and our main C# application on the same box, in the beginning, would be a big plus. It simply saves a server, and unifies our production environment to a single OS. Of course, it's just something relevant in the very beginning, and probably only for the non-valley-super-funded kind of startups. But it's this kind of stuff that might make us change our minds about Redis; if we can avoid doing system administration on two different OS'es for the time being, plus avoid installing two servers per application instance, then that's really a big plus for us. It allows us more time for functionality and less time for all kinds of admin scripting and whatnot. Of course, you could reason that we should simply switch off Windows entirely, but we really like C# and Visual Studio and we're productive in it. Also, it'd be great to be able to develop against a more "official" version of Redis then what we have now. Note, I'm not at all telling you what to do. I'm just giving you an idea why maybe it is useful to consider supporting Windows, using my personal situation as an example. Not every startup chooses Ruby or Node. Not every developer prefers a Mac. For the same reason I also humbly doubt the 99.99% number you quote. I think if you'd move to support Windows better, that number would decrease because organisations and people who run on Windows will now often simply disregard Redis as an option. Especially corporate environments (business IT for instance) are usually very heavily Windows-based. The same holds for nearly the entire "high tech" industry (software for machines, devices, factory lines - e.g. nearly any office-scale printer you can buy runs Windows, nearly all factory management (MES/SCADA) software is Windows-based, etc.). These are industries that could benefit a lot from the performance increases Redis could give them (by using it essentially in the same way as stackoverflow does). My bet is they'd often be reluctant to even consider it if it means training an entire sysadmin force for a new OS. And that's even disregarding the software vendors who (so oldschool) sell software installed by clients (f.ex. the factory line stuff). They want to make their software faster, they don't want to force their client to administrate an extra OS. Once again: not telling you what to do, it's your call (and I'm thankful for Redis no matter what). I'm just saying: mind the big jolly POSIX filter bubble; there's a big, big world out there, and a lot of it is very much not POSIX.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  ...nearly any office-scale printer you can buy runs Windows... I'm positive I've read about multi-function office copier/printers that run Linux, but none of my search queries on Google and DDG yielded anything useful. I just got a bunch of pages of people asking for drivers.
  - skrebbel 15y ago
    oh, i'm sure they exist. there's no reason why a printer can't run linux. It's just that when most high end printers got UIs (mid to late 90s), Windows was the only decent dependable, supplier-backed option available, really. And since then the software evolved and thus stayed Windows-specific. Similar reasons for why most other industrial / high-end professional devices run Windows. Effectively, Microsoft has locked in an entire industry (and as long as their developer support keeps kicking ass, few in the industry mind this).
    - 18pfsmt 15y ago
      Hmm. Most of the multifunction, networked printers I've had to deal with in small business offices run NetBSD. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen one that runs Windows. Of course, my experience is limited to only ~9 offices, but I just assumed they were all like that.
- yread 15y ago
  I'm coming from a very similar position (corun small bootstrapped startup running on windows server, outside the valley). In fact, my position is even worse, I want my software to run on my customer's servers. That's why the attitude shocked me. Anyway, antirez wrote a blog post explaining his position in a level-headed and reasonable tone: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3333298 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3333298 And it is indeed his call what to do with the patch. It is just a bit sad that there is this MS divide
  - beagle3 15y ago
    Read my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3334150 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3334150 (and downvote it :) if we can infer anything from the downvote statistics in this thread) > That's why the attitude shocked me. Is your customer paying you? (I assume yes) Are you paying Antirez? (I assume no) Why is that attitude shocking you? You are paying Microsoft, and the only reason they want Redis to run on windows is so that you'll keep paying them. Not some grand "Oh redis is nice, we really want to support it". > It is just a bit sad that there is this MS divide And Microsoft is entirely to blame for it. And cut the "Microsoft is a big company, don't treat it homogenously" bullsh@t. Barack Obama can't deport a us citizen he doesn't like (or at least couldn't until last week). Steve Ballmer can (and does) fire MS employees that are not aligned with his vision. There might be the occasional local initiatives that look nice -- but Microsoft is an enemy of free software.

by antirez 15y ago

skrebbel 15y ago

> Also, what is the point on having a production quality Redis server on Windows? I (co-)run a small bootstrapped startup running on a Windows server. We're considering to use Redis as our primary (only) database. For us, the simple ability to run Redis and our main C# application on the same box, in the beginning, would be a big plus. It simply saves a server, and unifies our production environment to a single OS. Of course, it's just something relevant in the very beginning, and probably only for the non-valley-super-funded kind of startups. But it's this kind of stuff that might make us change our minds about Redis; if we can avoid doing system administration on two different OS'es for the time being, plus avoid installing two servers per application instance, then that's really a big plus for us. It allows us more time for functionality and less time for all kinds of admin scripting and whatnot. Of course, you could reason that we should simply switch off Windows entirely, but we really like C# and Visual Studio and we're productive in it. Also, it'd be great to be able to develop against a more "official" version of Redis then what we have now. Note, I'm not at all telling you what to do. I'm just giving you an idea why maybe it is useful to consider supporting Windows, using my personal situation as an example. Not every startup chooses Ruby or Node. Not every developer prefers a Mac. For the same reason I also humbly doubt the 99.99% number you quote. I think if you'd move to support Windows better, that number would decrease because organisations and people who run on Windows will now often simply disregard Redis as an option. Especially corporate environments (business IT for instance) are usually very heavily Windows-based. The same holds for nearly the entire "high tech" industry (software for machines, devices, factory lines - e.g. nearly any office-scale printer you can buy runs Windows, nearly all factory management (MES/SCADA) software is Windows-based, etc.). These are industries that could benefit a lot from the performance increases Redis could give them (by using it essentially in the same way as stackoverflow does). My bet is they'd often be reluctant to even consider it if it means training an entire sysadmin force for a new OS. And that's even disregarding the software vendors who (so oldschool) sell software installed by clients (f.ex. the factory line stuff). They want to make their software faster, they don't want to force their client to administrate an extra OS. Once again: not telling you what to do, it's your call (and I'm thankful for Redis no matter what). I'm just saying: mind the big jolly POSIX filter bubble; there's a big, big world out there, and a lot of it is very much not POSIX.

nitrogen 15y ago
...nearly any office-scale printer you can buy runs Windows... I'm positive I've read about multi-function office copier/printers that run Linux, but none of my search queries on Google and DDG yielded anything useful. I just got a bunch of pages of people asking for drivers.
- skrebbel 15y ago
  oh, i'm sure they exist. there's no reason why a printer can't run linux. It's just that when most high end printers got UIs (mid to late 90s), Windows was the only decent dependable, supplier-backed option available, really. And since then the software evolved and thus stayed Windows-specific. Similar reasons for why most other industrial / high-end professional devices run Windows. Effectively, Microsoft has locked in an entire industry (and as long as their developer support keeps kicking ass, few in the industry mind this).
  - 18pfsmt 15y ago
    Hmm. Most of the multifunction, networked printers I've had to deal with in small business offices run NetBSD. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen one that runs Windows. Of course, my experience is limited to only ~9 offices, but I just assumed they were all like that.
yread 15y ago
I'm coming from a very similar position (corun small bootstrapped startup running on windows server, outside the valley). In fact, my position is even worse, I want my software to run on my customer's servers. That's why the attitude shocked me. Anyway, antirez wrote a blog post explaining his position in a level-headed and reasonable tone: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3333298 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3333298 And it is indeed his call what to do with the patch. It is just a bit sad that there is this MS divide
- beagle3 15y ago
  Read my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3334150 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3334150 (and downvote it :) if we can infer anything from the downvote statistics in this thread) > That's why the attitude shocked me. Is your customer paying you? (I assume yes) Are you paying Antirez? (I assume no) Why is that attitude shocking you? You are paying Microsoft, and the only reason they want Redis to run on windows is so that you'll keep paying them. Not some grand "Oh redis is nice, we really want to support it". > It is just a bit sad that there is this MS divide And Microsoft is entirely to blame for it. And cut the "Microsoft is a big company, don't treat it homogenously" bullsh@t. Barack Obama can't deport a us citizen he doesn't like (or at least couldn't until last week). Steve Ballmer can (and does) fire MS employees that are not aligned with his vision. There might be the occasional local initiatives that look nice -- but Microsoft is an enemy of free software.