Me too! Bi-modal behaviors can result in systems with a large step function in performance when a threshold is crossed (I’m looking at you Compressed OOPS!). It would be nice to keep operational complexity low and give users a consistent behavior expectation.
Anthony > On Feb 16, 2017, at 8:51 AM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > 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)
