Yep in general when people consider Redis forks or alternaives that use more complex models, they don't realize the cost associated to the fact Redis is made in a certian way to be very stable and solid, and different choices lead to more fragility. Things that sometimes gets unnoticed:
1. The non threaded architecture of Redis need more management since you have to shard to many instances, but it is optimal from the POV of CPU utilization, especially if you do pinning to different NICs and so forth. And the risk of bugs in threaded code is very large.
2. Redis threadoffs such as copy-on-write during persistence is not optimal all the times, but the worst case behavior is predictable, and whatever is the layout of the data structure, you copy 4k pages. When more complex techniques are emplyed, sometimes you can do much better, sometimes you fail in a quite pathological way.
3. In general simplicity is there for a reason, and if you go with a fork that is more compelx, has ways less users, less developers and so forth, things can be less pleasent than they appear in READMEs with fancy benchmarks.
4. Redis is conceived to be easy to understand and modify by the folks that run it at scale. So the simplicity also is a way to say: come in, change things in your fork, make it particularly adapt for your use case: it's not going to be too complex to do it. Hackability is the contrary of vendor lock-in.