I like the idea of first class data structures like Lists and Sorted Sets. I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on in terms of very large objects and using Regions to represent them. Feels very heavy because of all the overhead of a Region entry in Geode (over 300 bytes per entry).
I think the main reason people will want to use Geode in place of Redis will be horizontal scale in terms of the number of structures first, size of structures second, ability to get additional enterprise features like synchronous instead of asynchronous replication from masters to slaves (zero-data-loss) multi-site and even multi-cloud use cases (WAN Gateway). -- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I think we as a community need to determine what value do we want to add > with the Redis adapter. Redis already does a great job storing small data > structures in memory and sharding them. We do a great job of making sure > that these data structures are horizontally scalable; why would we want to > replicate what another open source project is already implementing? > > Having said that, I would like to see a configuration property that lets > the user chose between a single server vs a distributed collection. > > > > I think we could have the following options: > > > > 1. have a property that could be set to use either single server > > collections over use the current distributed collection > > 2. have first class collection implementations that are distributed by > > nature, as using key:value as the hammer for all does not make sense > > > > I don't think these options are mutually exclusive. We should make lists > and SortedSets first class data structures in Geode alongside regions. >
