Amazon MemoryDB for Redis

aws.amazon.com

27 points·stunt··11 comments

Corey Quinn was... not complimentary. Thread: https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1428517779330584579

> It also slaps on a monstrous 20¢ per GB charge on the data you write into it. Are you out of your goddamned tree?!

> Okay. At the end of this experiment it's clear that my assessment was completely off base. @awscloud has indeed done the right thing and partnered with @Redisinc, because MemoryDB is the absolute best sales pitch for Redis that I have ever seen.

MemoryDB seems to offer durability across restart at the expense of $0.20 per GB writes and slower writes.

If you need traditional caching you should use ElasticCache Redis.

What’s the reason to go with this over their managed redis offering?

Chatter I've seen on Twitter suggests that this is an extremely expensive option that is optimized for durability - most interesting to people who are using Redis as their primary data store and want to minimize the chance of data loss.

See also Tendis https://github.com/Tencent/Tendis Tendis is a high-performance distributed storage system which is fully compatible with the Redis protocol.

https://aws.amazon.com/de/memorydb/faqs/ (seems you cant link to individual answers...)

Its in the FAQ, but effectively, a performance trade off for durability - the writes go up to "single-digit millisecond write latency" instead of the usual redis microsecond/less.

Earlier post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28237443

I think this could replace existing S3 workloads more than existing Redis workloads.

What do you have in mind? Like processing Jason stores in s3 or something else?

They should have aquihired Upstash instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com