I agree with Swapnil here on all points. Why duplicate what Redis already does? We need to focus on our strengths and why we are targeting Redis users... i.e. our "value add". Geode is not going to win any popularity contest against Redis for the exact reasons/UCs why Redis exists in the first place.
Having said that, I was thinking to both minimize the overhead and as well as to preserve our horizontal scale out nature (unlike Redis), then just "spill one way" (perhaps). This is certainly far less complex to implement. Like our serialization mechanism, once a value is deserialized, it is always kept in the Region that way. Once a Redis data structure becomes too large and spills over (so to say), it stays that way. And the spill over should be based on the capacity of the Region/node; not (yet another) property. Just a thought. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> wrote: > 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. > > > -- -John john.blum10101 (skype)
