compared to presto, has more support than prestodb. Impala has limitations to what drill can support apache phoenix only supports for hbase. no support for cassandra.
UI isn't that great compared to the other competitors. The management of our memcached cluster was becoming pretty complicated as the application grew in size. Redis is a much better option compared to memcached. Redis is bit unreliable compared to the alternative RabbitMQ …
Vice President, Chief Architect, Development Manager and Software Engineer
Chose Redis Software
All are good products. MongoDB is a great NoSQL DB but didn't seem to have the high performance caching of Redis. Coherence and Xtreme Scale are expensive. In my opinion for our particular use case, Redis was the clear winner.
Redis is faster, provides documents JSON-wise with the proper odule and it is far more stable than Mongodb (we had really bad experiences with Mongo, especially when ops tends to increase).
DynamoDB is a fully managed key-value store by Amazon. It provides more powerful indexing to the tables, which certainly increases the performance if searching is what you need. However, it is also a lot more expensive to use compared to Redis. If your use case is more on the …
We evaluated Oracle and at first it seems competitive but after the contract term pricing would jump. Heard this from business associates and online communities
ElastiCache also offers Redis, but it's quite cryptic and you have to pay for support separately (it's quite expensive as well). With Redis Enterprise we were able to set-up our cluster with constant support from their team, and we were even able to set-up a particular set of …
We initially used Memcached for some of the caching and locking solutions we now use Redis for; we found that for the purposes of our system Memcache could not match up to Redis for performance. We also found Redis to be a bit more reliable, but that could have just been down …
We are big users of MySQL and PostgreSQL. We were looking at replacing our aging web page caching technology and found that we could do it in SQL, but there was a NoSQL movement happening at the time. We dabbled a bit in the NoSQL scene just to get an idea of what it was about …
We initially tried ElastiCache with Redis hosting. While it did the job of running Redis, we still had to deal with server sizing. We switched to Redis Cloud since that had auto-scaling and easy to use tools.
if you're doing joins from hBASE, hdfs, cassandra and redis, then this works. Using it as a be all end all does not suit it. This is not your straight forward magic software that works for all scenarios. One needs to determine the use case to see if Apache Drill fits the needs. 3/4 of the time, usually it does.
Perfect solution for caching needs. If you have a bottleneck due to frequent data access to your database, then Redis can really help you by diverting those traffic away from your database. Its key/value pair structure also makes data lookup very efficient, providing excellent performance.
Easy for developers to understand. Unlike Riak, which I've used in the past, it's fast without having to worry about eventual consistency.
Reliable. With a proper multi-node configuration, it can handle failover instantly.
Configurable. We primarily still use Memcache for caching but one of the teams uses Redis for both long-term storage and temporary expiry keys without taking on another external dependency.
Fast. We process tens of thousands of RPS and it doesn't skip a beat.
Redis is super fast but it comes with a cost. Whole dataset resides in RAM. So it can be costly as primary memory is more costly, then secondary ones.
Persistence issues: To achieve it, Redis uses a memory dump to create a persistence snapshot, that's cool. But it requires some Linux Kernel tweaking to avoid performance degradation while the Redis server process is forking. This further causes latency.
Master-slave structure side effect: Master-slave architecture comes with its own side effects. Please note that there will be only one master with multiple slaves for replication. All writing goes to the master, which creates more load on the master node. So, when the master goes down, the whole architecture does.
if Presto comes up with more support (ie hbase, s3), then its strongly possible that we'll move from apache drill to prestoDB. However, Apache drill needs more configuration ease, especially when it comes to garbage collection tuning. If apache drill could support also sparkSQL and Flume, then it does change drill into being something more valuable than prestoDB
We will definitely continue using Redis because: 1. It is free and open source. 2. We already use it in so many applications, it will be hard for us to let go. 3. There isn't another competitive product that we know of that gives a better performance. 4. We never had any major issues with Redis, so no point turning our backs.
It is quite simple to set up for the purpose of managing user sessions in the backend. It can be easily integrated with other products or technologies, such as Spring in Java. If you need to actually display the data stored in Redis in your application this is a bit difficult to understand initially but is possible.
The support team has always been excellent in handling our mostly questions, rarely problems. They are responsive, find the solution and get us moving forward again. I have never had to escalate a case with them. They have always solved our problems in a very timely manner. I highly commend the support team.
compared to presto, has more support than prestodb. Impala has limitations to what drill can support apache phoenix only supports for hbase. no support for cassandra. Apache drill was chosen, because of the multiple data stores that it supports htat the other 3 do not support. Presto does not support hbase as of yet. Impala does not support query to cassandra
UI isn't that great compared to the other competitors. The management of our memcached cluster was becoming pretty complicated as the application grew in size. Redis is a much better option compared to memcached. Redis is bit unreliable compared to the alternative RabbitMQ especially when it needs to be integrated with Celery.
Existing tools like Redisson that were built over Redis reduced dev time in solving challenging problems, which had a positive impact on ROI.
We initially misused Redis for persistent storage which had a negative impact on ROI because we were paying a lot for inactive users.
The increased performance we achieved using Redis in areas like locking helped us improve the performance of our system reducing the likelihood of system timeouts.