alt Hacker NewsRedis is as reliable as the storage you persist it to. If you're running Redis right, it's very reliable. Not S3 reliable, though. But if you need S3 reliable, you would turn to something else.
I expect that most folks looking at this are doing it because it means:
1. Effectively unbounded storage
2. It's fast
3. It's pretty darn cheap
4. You can scale it horizontally in a way that's challenging to scale other filesystems
5. All the components are pretty easy to set up. Many folks are probably already running S3 and Redis.
Replies
> Redis is as reliable as the storage you persist it to.
For a single node, if you tank performance by changing the configuration, sure. Otherwise, no, not really.
I don't get why you'd want a file system that isn't durable, but to each their own.
> 4. You can scale it horizontally in a way that's challenging to scale other filesystems
Easy to scale on RDS, along with everything else. But there’s no Kubernetes operator. Is there a better measure of “easy” or “challenging?” IMO no. Perhaps I am spoiled by CNPG.
Redis isn't durable unless you drastically reduce the performance.
Filesystems are pretty much by definition durable.