Hi! On Fri, 2024-03-22 at 12:35:47 +0000, Chris Lamb wrote: > > I'm CCing Chris, who might perhaps be interested in replacing Redis with > > KeyDB as its spiritual successor and taking this on? Or if not, at least > > to perhaps potentially coordinate some kind of transition, even though > > we've had issues migrating persistent DBs from newer Redis to KeyDB, so > > that might be tricky or not feasible at all. > > Thanks for including me here. I had not yet looked into potential > Redis replacements nor the exact and precise details of the new > license etc. and this activity around KeyDB feels like a good start. > I thought I'd let the dust settle for a bit before making any > decisions — perhaps the change even gets reversed (!), and no doubt > there might be new alternatives that will fork the code immediately > prior to the license change.
Yeah, fair enough. > My personal and professional usage of Redis has dropped off in the > past few years, so it would make more sense for me to help out in a > team maintainership role, at least with respect to KeyDB. Ack. > However, I'd be interested in coordinating around some kind of > Redis→KeyDB/something transition if need be. For KeyDB, that would also depend on whether KeyDB adds Redis 7 support or not I guess. https://github.com/Snapchat/KeyDB/issues/420 and if that does not materialize, a potential migration path via: https://github.com/Snapchat/KeyDB/issues/527#issuecomment-1370606311 In our, case we migrated from Redis 6 to KeyDB, so the above did not really affect us. > (Incidentally, why did your work switch to KeyDB?) We did this several years ago, AFAIR mainly for its active-active replication mode for our HA setup. The multi-threading was a nice improvement too. And I cannot recall exactly, but I think at that time Redis Inc was already going into a weird licensing path with its other adjacent projects, so we might have taken that too as a nice side effect to get away from. Thanks, Guillem
