What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

From this post, it is clear that the SO team uses Redis heavily and it has been working well for them. Since there are a number of other similar solutions in the cache space, I was wondering why the So team went with Redis over memcache (or any others).

Could anyone shed some light on this for me?

While my project is no where near the traffic volumes of SO, I've been asked to investigate a cache solution and I thought I would ask one of the most well respected and open groups available to see if they could share any insight into why Redis was selected.

share|improve this question
    
Anecdotally, the post you linked suggests that Redis is hella fast, and the Team has experience with it. –  Robert Harvey Jan 23 '12 at 21:03
    
@RobertHarvey - Yes, Redis is hell'a fast, and I agree that the team has experience with it based on the post and the time that's passed since then, but a number of Redis vs. Memcache benchmarks I've found indicate that Memcache might be a bit faster, so I was wondering what other reasoning (or what reasoning in general) went into selecting Redis. Even if the reason was "first thing we tried and it worked for us", I'd still like to know :) –  cdeszaq Jan 23 '12 at 21:13

1 Answer 1

I think that they choosed Redis because redis can do a lot more things that memcache can't.

Take a look at this reply : http://stackoverflow.com/a/11257333

Even if memcache is a bit faster, Redis remains a good choice in regard of :

  • persistance of data : you do not need to harm your cache
  • storing data : more manipulations, requesting, and atomic levels of storage
  • evolving : Redis is actively evolving, from my point of view that's a better bet for future than memcache
share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .