4 ms·

There is also DragonflyDB which claims to be faster than both Redis and KeyDB. https://www.dragonflydb.io/ https://www.dragonflydb.io/

bionsystem 3y ago
Are they linked in any way with DragonflyBSD ?
- fweimer 3y ago
  Unlikely, it's not even open source: https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.m...
  - Buttons840 3y ago
    I've never seen this license. It looks like it will be open source under the Apache license after 5 years though. That is, I can save the code now, and in 5 years I can do whatever I want with it (under the Apache license terms). When open-source isn't an option, then this is the next best thing.
    - solarkraft 3y ago
      Huh, interesting concept. It's definitely a big step above "source available". It even kind of allows maintaining a community version with outside patches, albeit slowly. It kind of rivals the KDE/Qt deal of "freely licensed when the company goes under" in its effects of the code eventually being community-maintainable once the company doesn't care for it anymore. 5 years is a bit much though.
  - rollcat 3y ago
    It is open source, you can browse the source all you like. It's not free software. BSL-style licenses seem to be a popular choice for databases, thanks to AWS.
    - erk__ 3y ago
      Well "source available" would probably be better. It is not open source by the definitions most follow in this case the OSI definition. Eg it goes against §6 of their definition. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
    - Un1corn 3y ago
      Please don't try to delude people by changing the definition of open source. While sadly Open Source Initiative were not able to get the trademark for open source, the de-facto definition of open source is practically the same as free software. Dragonfly is source available which is a completely different thing.
      - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
        That's just like, your opinion, man. I think the parallels to free software are markedly correct. They're just words after all. It will forever be used in ways incompatible with the OSI definition, showing up after every misuse to correct folks isn't helpful. You meant free as in beer, right?
      - rollcat 3y ago
        > Please don't try to delude people by changing the definition of open source. Don't blame it on me, that ship has sailed over two decades ago. That's why RMS didn't like the term in the first place. Even if I disagree with RMS on most things, I have to admit I'm 100% with him on this one. It's almost as if the term was coined to create this kind of confusion. In my opinion, the mental gymnastics around the definition of "open source" led to abominations like CDDL, which was carefully and explicitly designed to make it impossible/impractical/illegal to properly integrate ZFS or DTrace with Linux. CDDL is perfectly "open source" by definition, but its primary purpose was to lock people out of actually using software licensed under it, unless they happen to be running Solaris. In all this mess, I actually think BSL is cool. It's a legally binding vow to actually make a particular release free (as in freedom) down the line. They could have kept it proprietary (which I think is totally fair), or made vague promises instead.
Kiro 3y ago
This comment made me think Dragonfly is a much better choice: "We use keydb at work, and I absolutely do NOT recommend it due to its extreme instability, in fact we're currently in the process of switching to dragonfly precisely due to keydb's instability." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35990897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35990897
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lopkeny12ko 3y ago
We evaluated DragonflyDB for Memcache. It was repeatably orders of magnitude slower under default configurations than original Memcache, using their own benchmark setup. Either they didn't even test their own product, lied entirely about the performance, or got the marketing department to write the copy without any input from the development department.
- romange 3y ago
  I personally benchmarked Dragonfly vs Memcached. Are you calling me a liar? :) Do you think I also photoshopped this document? https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/master/docs/memcached_benchmark.md https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/master/docs/me...
  - lopkeny12ko 3y ago
    I assume you are the lead developer or someone in an exeuctive position associated with Dragonfly. Your defensive, holier-than-thou attitude and tone here and elsewhere is another reason we decided not to adopt Dragonfly internally. Yes, your results are either inaccurate or deceptive at best. I challenge you run to memcached, under all default settings, and Dragonfly, under all default settings, and memtier_benchmark, under all default settings. Performance is reproducibly orders of magnitude slower, and Dragonfly is also much less efficient--consuming more than double the CPU usage for the same workload. We also created a test Dragonfly cluster mirroring a small percentage of production traffic in order to do a side-by-side comparison with Memcache. Dragonfly consumed 47% higher CPU usage and regressed P99 latency by 22%. Perhaps our workload is unique, but claiming Dragonfly outperforms Memcache the way you do in your marketing material is an outright lie.
    - romange 3y ago
      I apologize. I must say that my tone, as you rightly wrote, was inappropriate. Indeed, I am the lead developer for Dragonfly. As such, I am deeply concerned with the performance aspects of our product. Dragonfly claims to be a drop-in, better performant replacement for Redis and Memcached. Every test & benchmark we've run on multiple cpus reinforced that. I've never faked or tweaked any of these benchmarks. That is, of course, not an excuse, and is why I opened by apologizing. I'd like to take this opportunity, if I can kindly ask so, to learn what made your results differ so much from ours. I'll personally try to reproduce what you described. If you could also reach out to me, I'd be happy to learn more about the environments in which you've conducted the aforementioned tests.

bionsystem 3y ago

Are they linked in any way with DragonflyBSD ?

fweimer 3y ago
Unlikely, it's not even open source: https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.m...
- Buttons840 3y ago
  I've never seen this license. It looks like it will be open source under the Apache license after 5 years though. That is, I can save the code now, and in 5 years I can do whatever I want with it (under the Apache license terms). When open-source isn't an option, then this is the next best thing.
  - solarkraft 3y ago
    Huh, interesting concept. It's definitely a big step above "source available". It even kind of allows maintaining a community version with outside patches, albeit slowly. It kind of rivals the KDE/Qt deal of "freely licensed when the company goes under" in its effects of the code eventually being community-maintainable once the company doesn't care for it anymore. 5 years is a bit much though.
- rollcat 3y ago
  It is open source, you can browse the source all you like. It's not free software. BSL-style licenses seem to be a popular choice for databases, thanks to AWS.
  - erk__ 3y ago
    Well "source available" would probably be better. It is not open source by the definitions most follow in this case the OSI definition. Eg it goes against §6 of their definition. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
  - Un1corn 3y ago
    Please don't try to delude people by changing the definition of open source. While sadly Open Source Initiative were not able to get the trademark for open source, the de-facto definition of open source is practically the same as free software. Dragonfly is source available which is a completely different thing.
    - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
      That's just like, your opinion, man. I think the parallels to free software are markedly correct. They're just words after all. It will forever be used in ways incompatible with the OSI definition, showing up after every misuse to correct folks isn't helpful. You meant free as in beer, right?
    - rollcat 3y ago
      > Please don't try to delude people by changing the definition of open source. Don't blame it on me, that ship has sailed over two decades ago. That's why RMS didn't like the term in the first place. Even if I disagree with RMS on most things, I have to admit I'm 100% with him on this one. It's almost as if the term was coined to create this kind of confusion. In my opinion, the mental gymnastics around the definition of "open source" led to abominations like CDDL, which was carefully and explicitly designed to make it impossible/impractical/illegal to properly integrate ZFS or DTrace with Linux. CDDL is perfectly "open source" by definition, but its primary purpose was to lock people out of actually using software licensed under it, unless they happen to be running Solaris. In all this mess, I actually think BSL is cool. It's a legally binding vow to actually make a particular release free (as in freedom) down the line. They could have kept it proprietary (which I think is totally fair), or made vague promises instead.

Kiro 3y ago

This comment made me think Dragonfly is a much better choice: "We use keydb at work, and I absolutely do NOT recommend it due to its extreme instability, in fact we're currently in the process of switching to dragonfly precisely due to keydb's instability." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35990897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35990897

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lopkeny12ko 3y ago

We evaluated DragonflyDB for Memcache. It was repeatably orders of magnitude slower under default configurations than original Memcache, using their own benchmark setup. Either they didn't even test their own product, lied entirely about the performance, or got the marketing department to write the copy without any input from the development department.

romange 3y ago
I personally benchmarked Dragonfly vs Memcached. Are you calling me a liar? :) Do you think I also photoshopped this document? https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/master/docs/memcached_benchmark.md https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/master/docs/me...
- lopkeny12ko 3y ago
  I assume you are the lead developer or someone in an exeuctive position associated with Dragonfly. Your defensive, holier-than-thou attitude and tone here and elsewhere is another reason we decided not to adopt Dragonfly internally. Yes, your results are either inaccurate or deceptive at best. I challenge you run to memcached, under all default settings, and Dragonfly, under all default settings, and memtier_benchmark, under all default settings. Performance is reproducibly orders of magnitude slower, and Dragonfly is also much less efficient--consuming more than double the CPU usage for the same workload. We also created a test Dragonfly cluster mirroring a small percentage of production traffic in order to do a side-by-side comparison with Memcache. Dragonfly consumed 47% higher CPU usage and regressed P99 latency by 22%. Perhaps our workload is unique, but claiming Dragonfly outperforms Memcache the way you do in your marketing material is an outright lie.
  - romange 3y ago
    I apologize. I must say that my tone, as you rightly wrote, was inappropriate. Indeed, I am the lead developer for Dragonfly. As such, I am deeply concerned with the performance aspects of our product. Dragonfly claims to be a drop-in, better performant replacement for Redis and Memcached. Every test & benchmark we've run on multiple cpus reinforced that. I've never faked or tweaked any of these benchmarks. That is, of course, not an excuse, and is why I opened by apologizing. I'd like to take this opportunity, if I can kindly ask so, to learn what made your results differ so much from ours. I'll personally try to reproduce what you described. If you could also reach out to me, I'd be happy to learn more about the environments in which you've conducted the aforementioned tests.