we have a small project, and we want to start using a non-clustered version of either keydb or redis. I've read a lot of reviews. I would like to hear more. Which system will be easier to turn into a cluster in the future, and maybe transfer to kubernetes?
Regarding scaling/simplicity, I would point out both Redis and KeyDB are able to turn into sharded clusters, or add replica nodes, KeyDB also offers active replication (some limits, but avoids sentinel). Both are also compatible with RESP protocol so can use any Redis client.
A few points relevant to both KeyDB and Redis when trying to simplify scaling in the future (ie. moving to a sharded data set):
Ensure you use a client that is compatible with cluster-mode enabled as not all are
Be careful of how you use transactions. If you rely heavily on transactions that hit multiple keys, you may need to rethink this when spreading data across multiple shards.
The point above also applies to certain commands that can hit multiple shards such as SCAN, KEYS, batch requests (ie. MGET), SUNION, etc. Planning how you structure your data may make this easier when you decide to scale up.
Can i use azure cosmos db instead of redis cache for server side caching , i feel that cosmos Db also provides key value storage, has geo replication , read write access and lower latency than redis cache
If you're still reading this 2 years later note the following. The answer is yes but the real story is that they work better together. Azure Cache for Redis now has an Enterprise Tier through the same Marketplace tile. This gives you the ability to deploy Redis in an Active-Active model across multiple regions where all instances are readable and writeable with conflict resolution built into the different datatypes that Redis supports. Couple that with higher performance through the redis enterprise proxy and up to 5 9's of availability gives you additional options to choose from. Azure Cache for Redis Enterprise (ACRE) in front of Cosmos is a real option as ACRE has sub-millisecond latency capabilities. Note, I work for Redis Labs and have seen this work and deployed it myself.
Redis is an in-memory datastore hence it's primary use-case is in-memory caching. Since it is a Key-value store, it has generally limited query ability, only allowing queries by primary key.
While, CosmosDB is Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service. It becomes handy in scenarios where you need the ability to query over heterogeneous data.
Those two are totally for different purposes, even Microsoft has redis cache as a service apart from CosmosDB only to serve this purpose.
Cosmos is probably going to be more expensive, from a cost perspective, than using Redis - depending on your throughput.
The one big benefit you can achieve with Cosmos is multi-read regions so your availability could increase and also the latency to your users if they're reading from a Cosmos region closer to them.
I have read that netflix uses evcache , which is a wrapper over memcache and evcache proves better than memcache
In general it is said that redis server as a better cache than memcache, was trying to find the comparisons of redis and evcache.
Does redis scale as well as evcache or memcache? I am assuming that evcache scaling is tried and tested (hence works good for netflix)
EVCache is a functionality add wrapper over memcache. It is an application that Netflix devs wrote to add functionality they need in their cache layer while using memcache as the underlying data store. You can write your own EVCache to use redis as the data store
Comparing redis to Evcache is not the correct comparison as they operate on two different layers.
Does redis scale as well as evcache or memcache?
Redis can scale to many hundreds of thousands of requests per second.
In general, redis is preferred over memcache because of its many in built data structures
Redis is single threaded so once CPU usage hits 80+% it is better to run another instance instead of giving it a bigger server
I understand that Redis serves all data from memory, but does it persist as well across server reboot so that when the server reboots it reads into memory all the data from disk. Or is it always a blank store which is only to store data while apps are running with no persistence?
I suggest you read about this on http://redis.io/topics/persistence . Basically you lose the guaranteed persistence when you increase performance by using only in-memory storing. Imagine a scenario where you INSERT into memory, but before it gets persisted to disk lose power. There will be data loss.
Redis supports so-called "snapshots". This means that it will do a complete copy of whats in memory at some points in time (e.g. every full hour). When you lose power between two snapshots, you will lose the data from the time between the last snapshot and the crash (doesn't have to be a power outage..). Redis trades data safety versus performance, like most NoSQL-DBs do.
Most NoSQL-databases follow a concept of replication among multiple nodes to minimize this risk. Redis is considered more a speedy cache instead of a database that guarantees data consistency. Therefore its use cases typically differ from those of real databases:
You can, for example, store sessions, performance counters or whatever in it with unmatched performance and no real loss in case of a crash. But processing orders/purchase histories and so on is considered a job for traditional databases.
Redis server saves all its data to HDD from time to time, thus providing some level of persistence.
It saves data in one of the following cases:
automatically from time to time
when you manually call BGSAVE command
when redis is shutting down
But data in redis is not really persistent, because:
crash of redis process means losing all changes since last save
BGSAVE operation can only be performed if you have enough free RAM (the amount of extra RAM is equal to the size of redis DB)
N.B.: BGSAVE RAM requirement is a real problem, because redis continues to work up until there is no more RAM to run in, but it stops saving data to HDD much earlier (at approx. 50% of RAM).
For more information see Redis Persistence.
It is a matter of configuration. You can have none, partial or full persistence of your data on Redis. The best decision will be driven by the project's technical and business needs.
According to the Redis documentation about persistence you can set up your instance to save data into disk from time to time or on each query, in a nutshell. They provide two strategies/methods AOF and RDB (read the documentation to see details about then), you can use each one alone or together.
If you want a "SQL like persistence", they have said:
The general indication is that you should use both persistence methods if you want a degree of data safety comparable to what PostgreSQL can provide you.
The answer is generally yes, however a fuller answer really depends on what type of data you're trying to store. In general, the more complete short answer is:
Redis isn't the best fit for persistent storage as it's mainly performance focused
Redis is really more suitable for reliable in-memory storage/cacheing of current state data, particularly for allowing scalability by providing a central source for data used across multiple clients/servers
Having said this, by default Redis will persist data snapshots at a periodic interval (apparently this is every 1 minute, but I haven't verified this - this is described by the article below, which is a good basic intro):
http://qnimate.com/redis-permanent-storage/
TL;DR
From the official docs:
RDB persistence [the default] performs point-in-time snapshots of your dataset at specified intervals.
AOF persistence [needs to be explicitly configured] logs every write operation received by the server, that will be played again at server startup, reconstructing the
original dataset.
Redis must be explicitly configured for AOF persistence, if this is required, and this will result in a performance penalty as well as growing logs. It may suffice for relatively reliable persistence of a limited amount of data flow.
You can choose no persistence at all.Better performance but all the data lose when Redis shutting down.
Redis has two persistence mechanisms: RDB and AOF.RDB uses a scheduler global snapshooting and AOF writes update to an apappend-only log file similar to MySql.
You can use one of them or both.When Redis reboots,it constructes data from reading the RDB file or AOF file.
All the answers in this thread are talking about the possibility of redis to persist the data: https://redis.io/topics/persistence (Using AOF + after every write (change)).
It's a great link to get you started, but it is defenently not showing you the full picture.
Can/Should You Really Persist Unrecoverable Data/State On Redis?
Redis docs does not talk about:
Which redis providers support this (AOF + after every write) option:
Almost none of them - redis labs on the cloud does NOT provide this option. You may need to buy the on-premise version of redis-labs to support it. As not all companies are willing to go on-premise, then they will have a problem.
Other Redis Providers does not specify if they support this option at all. AWS Cache, Aiven,...
AOF + after every write - This option is slow. you will have to test it your self on your production hardware to see if it fits your requirements.
Redis enterpice provide this option and from this link: https://redislabs.com/blog/your-cloud-cant-do-that-0-5m-ops-acid-1msec-latency/ let's see some banchmarks:
1x x1.16xlarge instance on AWS - They could not achieve less than 2ms latency:
where latency was measured from the time the first byte of the request arrived at the cluster until the first byte of the ‘write’ response was sent back to the client
They had additional banchmarking on a much better harddisk (Dell-EMC VMAX) which results < 1ms operation latency (!!) and from 70K ops/sec (write intensive test) to 660K ops/sec (read intensive test). Pretty impresive!!!
But it defenetly required a (very) skilled devops to help you create this infrastructure and maintain it over time.
One could (falsy) argue that if you have a cluster of redis nodes (with replicas), now you have full persistency. this is false claim:
All DBs (sql,non-sql,redis,...) have the same problem - For example, running set x 1 on node1, how much time it takes for this (or any) change to be made in all the other nodes. So additional reads will receive the same output. well, it depends on alot of fuctors and configurations.
It is a nightmare to deal with inconsistency of a value of a key in multiple nodes (any DB type). You can read more about it from Redis Author (antirez): http://antirez.com/news/66. Here is a short example of the actual ngihtmare of storing a state in redis (+ a solution - WAIT command to know how much other redis nodes received the latest change change):
def save_payment(payment_id)
redis.rpush(payment_id,”in progress”) # Return false on exception
if redis.wait(3,1000) >= 3 then
redis.rpush(payment_id,”confirmed”) # Return false on exception
if redis.wait(3,1000) >= 3 then
return true
else
redis.rpush(payment_id,”cancelled”)
return false
end
else
return false
end
The above example is not suffeint and has a real problem of knowing in advance how much nodes there actually are (and alive) at every moment.
Other DBs will have the same problem as well. Maybe they have better APIs but the problem still exists.
As far as I know, alot of applications are not even aware of this problem.
All in all, picking more dbs nodes is not a one click configuration. It involves alot more.
To conclude this research, what to do depends on:
How much devs your team has (so this task won't slow you down)?
Do you have a skilled devops?
What is the distributed-system skills in your team?
Money to buy hardware?
Time to invest in the solution?
And probably more...
Many Not well-informed and relatively new users think that Redis is a cache only and NOT an ideal choice for Reliable Persistence.
The reality is that the lines between DB, Cache (and many more types) are blurred nowadays.
It's all configurable and as users/engineers we have choices to configure it as a cache, as a DB (and even as a hybrid).
Each choice comes with benefits and costs. And this is NOT an exception for Redis but all well-known Distributed systems provide options to configure different aspects (Persistence, Availability, Consistency, etc). So, if you configure Redis in default mode hoping that it will magically give you highly reliable persistence then it's team/engineer fault (and NOT that of Redis).
I have discussed these aspects in more detail on my blog here.
Also, here is a link from Redis itself.
According to this link which belongs to JBoss documentation, I understood that Infinispan is a better product than JBoss Cache and kind of improvement the reason for which they recommend to migrate from JBoss Cache to Infinispan, that is supported by JBoss as well. Am I right in what I understood? Otherwise, are there differences?
One more question : Talking about replication and distribution, can any one of them be better than the other according to the need?
Thank you
Question:
Talking about replication and distribution, can any one of them be better than the other according to the need?
Answer:
I am taking a reference directly from Clustering modes - Infinispan
Distributed:
Number of copies represents the tradeoff between performance and durability of data
The more copies you maintain, the lower performance will be, but also the lower the risk of losing data due to server outages
use of a consistent hash algorithm to determine where in a cluster entries should be stored
No need to replicate data on each node that takes more time than just communicating hash code
Best suitable if no of nodes are high
Best suitable if size of data stored in cache is high.
Replicated:
Entries added to any of these cache instances will be replicated to all other cache instances in the cluster
This clustered mode provides a quick and easy way to share state across a cluster
replication practically only performs well in small clusters (under 10 servers), due to the number of replication messages that need to happen - as the cluster size increases
Practical Experience:
I are using Infinispan cache in my running live application on Jboss server having 8 nodes. Initially I used replicated cache but it took much longer time to respond due to large size of data. Finally we come back to Distributed and now its working fine.
Use replicated or distributed cache only for data specific to any user session. If data is common regardless of any user than prefer Local cache that's created separately for each node.