5 ms·
Microsoft's Garnet has the best chance of replacing Redis, the OSS project and the hosting company. Article doesn't mention it, but supposedly Microsoft uses n
by CyanLite2 3y ago
Microsoft's Garnet has the best chance of replacing Redis, the OSS project and the hosting company.
Article doesn't mention it, but supposedly Microsoft uses novel algorithms and multi threading to achieve an order of magnitude improvement in throughput.
Now if they can commercialize it with Azure, it should be a credible alternative to Redis Enterprise hosting.
- ddorian43 3y agoProbably not, because it's new and incompatible with many Redis use cases (lua scripts, etc).
- alternatex 3y agoMost Redis users don't really do scripting though. If Microsoft manages to replace Redis for most use cases they will succeed.
- rmbyrro 3y agoArticle does mention it
- bcye 3y agoLet's replace a project that failed because of a CLA with another project that requires a CLA
- BartjeD 3y agoGarnet is MIT licensed. See: https://github.com/microsoft/garnet https://github.com/microsoft/garnet
- bcye 3y agoAnd requires a CLA, see the same link
- dindresto 3y agoI think the point BartjeD wants to make is that due to the nature of MIT licensing, they could run away with your contributions anyway, even without a CLA. Furthermore, Redis didn't have a CLA if I remember correctly and the relicensing is solely based on the what the previously used BSD license allows.
- bcye 3y agoInteresting, I thought the point of not wanting CLAs was not giving them the ability to relicense your code under a more restrictive license (i.e. SSPL), not to keep them from running away with it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mort96 3y agoIs that true? If I contribute to a MIT-licensed project without a CLA, my contributions can't just be re-licensed to some proprietary license, can it? Wouldn't my contributions remain MIT, even if they re-license all other parts of the project to some proprietary license? Isn't the point of CLAs that you can re-license contributors' contributions?
- paulryanrogers 3y agoMIT and BSD are so liberal that anyone can commercialize the work. All they have to do is attribute your parts to you, and not demand a warranty of you.
- mort96 3y agoWhy do corporate MIT-licensed projects have CLAs then? (That's not meant a gotcha, I just don't really know how this stuff works)
- AtNightWeCode 3y agoTo not support the FLUSHALL command suggests that Azure is the goal with the project.
- neonsunset 3y agoWhy?
- AtNightWeCode 3y agoIt should be a simple task to add that command and it is widely used. It sounds more like a business decision to not add it. It is not unusual that cloud providers make it difficult to delete data for various reasons.
- neonsunset 3y agoAs it currently stands, it is as difficult to get data onto Azure - you're supposed to manually deploy a container yourself to whichever cloud provider you are using, there is no "Managed Garnet" solution yet (but given hype it will probably arrive at some point). Either way you can see contributions to add more commands here: https://github.com/microsoft/garnet/pulls?q=is%3Apr+add+command https://github.com/microsoft/garnet/pulls?q=is%3Apr+add+comm... With that said, I'm slightly skeptical of/worried about Garnet but the reason is different - it received a bit too much hype soon after going public and I'm concerned it will be subject to corporate politics that often plague projects like that.
- AtNightWeCode 3y agoI was of course talking about a managed service. And the problem with deleting data exists in several Azure producs like Cosmos DB, Table storage, App Insights and so on.
- fmajid 3y agoNo, it’s built using the .NET stack most Linux users won’t touch with a 20-ft pole.
- neonsunset 3y agoIt’s a very unfortunate but classic myopic view of a hopefully smaller part of Linux community. Where-as .NET in reality is often easier to contribute to than a random project they are using with owner having ego issues. It’s a stack they are looking for but keep missing right under their nose.
- YoshiRulz 3y agoYou must be confusing .NET (formerly .NET Core) with .NET Framework. Which is forgivable, because MS is terrible at naming things. The former stack is a joy to work with since some QoL changes a few years ago—as long as you don't need both a GUI framework and Linux support, in which case you're pretty screwed. (Our app is still on .NET Framework for that reason.) I don't know if you were referring to the total install size of apps or to the licence or maybe just how annoying Mono was, but nowadays you can compile down to one binary, optionally with the runtime included. That makes it simpler for Linux sysadmins than Java or even Python, IMO.
- mort96 3y agoNo such confusion is going on. Most Linux people won't touch the Microsoft .NET stack with a 20 foot pole, whether it's called .NET Core or .NET Framework.
- bogwog 3y agoCan confirm. There is nothing Microsoft could possibly offer, except for maybe a ludicrous bribe, to convince me to walk into their ecosystem again.
- fmajid 3y agoOr Apple's Swift for that matter. Or Oracle's MySQL or Java. Or more recently Redis. It has nothing to do with the technical merits of the technology, but with suspicions of the intentions of the company behind it and a desire not to create a dependency on them.