3 ms·
> You are presuming ... No, no, not at all: I admit, accept that no doubt Redis has a lot more functionality than the few pages of code I wrote. My question
by graycat 3y ago
> You are presuming ...
No, no, not at all: I admit, accept that no doubt Redis has a lot more functionality than the few pages of code I wrote.
My question was: My code looks like it will do what I need done, but maybe I'm missing something, i.e., maybe Redis has some features that very likely I should have?
If want to expand the question to other people, what is the chance that usually Redis is overkill, more functionality, code, complexity, considerations, ..., than needed? I don't know so am asking.
Or, I had a 2 wheel drive car, but did I miss a lot not having a 4 wheel drive car that I nearly always used in only two wheel drive?
- JackSlateur 3y agoIf that is enough for you, then that is good You may need data persistence (keep the data live while you restart your process), cross-instance coherencies could be nice too, automatic data expiration too. But if you do not, then it is ok!
- graycat 3y agoThanks. My project had an interruption, and I'm getting back to the code. My code that needs a key-value store is simple, short, just uses two instances of a .NET collection class. I need NAT (network address translation) to keep affinity of each user with their one execution instance of my code, but I suspect that is automatic with Microsoft's IIS (Iinternet Information Server) that the code uses. For persistence, the code needs that only long enough for each user connection. And for performance, I don't need sharding across several servers acting like a cluster -- maybe that is some of what Redis supports. It appears that .NET has more functionality and performance potential (user connections per minute) than my project needs, so I'm trying not to try to master everything Google, Facebook, Amazon, a big bank, Walmart, etc. might need! So far, I'm pleased with .NET.