3 ms·
"Remember: if it fits in Redis, the problem requires, at maximum, a single node's memory and a single core--and can tolerate network latencies." Not entirely tr
by ironchef 13y ago
"Remember: if it fits in Redis, the problem requires, at maximum, a single node's memory and a single core--and can tolerate network latencies."
Not entirely true. A number of places out there use sharded redis. In which case, you're not limited by the memory or core in the same manner. A nit to pick, but hoping to keep the conversation on point (as you alluded to with the "shardable" comment)
- aphyr 13y agoIf you're using a sharded Redis, your problem is a collection of problems satisfying the above law. What I'm getting at is that if performance is seriously a problem, few things beat a dedicated service with concurrent, in-process memory--instead of pushing every operation to an external, fully serialized heap.