Yes, using a Redis cluster is the only way to get Redis to actually use system resources effectively, but its a relatively complex thing to create and manage compared to just running 1 server.
If you want to say "but this is more difficult": okay, fair enough (although in my experience it's not difficult at all), but then say that instead of posting a misleading benchmark which runs Redis in a way it's not supposed to run. You can place all sorts of artificial "yeah but I don't want to do it like this" constraints on all sort of things.
> Nokia was designed as strongest and most affordable phone, yet you use Iphone that costs 1000$
Actually I have a Nokia :-)
These are all fair and reasonable opinions to have, and to some degree I even agree with it, but none of that is captured in the rather simplistic benchmark. Everyone understands that even with the best of efforts it's hard to capture everything in a benchmark, but in this case it's just missing a very obvious way to run Redis.
It's like benchmarking PostgreSQL connections and coming to the conclusion there is no way PostgreSQL can handle more than n connections and that OtherSQL is much better. Is this true? Yes. But it's also true that half the world is running pg_bouncer and that this is widely seen as the way to run PostgreSQL if you need loads of connections. Is it a pain you need to run this and something that should be addressed in PostgreSQL? Absolutely. Such a benchmark would be correct in a strict narrow technical sense, but at the same time also misrepresentative of the real-world situation.
Provide more advanced benchmarks which demonstrates those types of differences better.
The situation is that the differences are complex, both in terms of performance and operationally (e.g. running multiple instances is not a huge obstacle, but it is harder). That's always going to be hard to capture in a single graph or a single tagline; I appreciate this isn't easy.
It's your website; you can do what you want with it. And maybe I'm just a grumpy old curmudgeon who has seen too many hype cycles, but to me it just comes off as "too good to be true" – which it kind of is – and leaves a more negative than positive impression. The same applies to "The most performant in-memory data store on Earth" tagline, which seems a bit hyperbolic (what is "fastest" depends, as you mentioned that Redis will always be faster on a single core – some people only need a single core!)
I have the business acumen of a goat, so what do I know? But it seems to me that a lot of people appreciate when products are straight-forward about their weaker points as well, and even straight-up say they're not the best fit for all scenarios, and in that in the long run this is more beneficial.
What if the database was designed to be run that way?
> You're comparing a box of Apples to a single apple.
Precisely. Dragonfly is a box of apples. Redis is a single apple that can be put in a box with other apples. If you run a "benchmark" comparing your box of apples against a sole apple, you're being either stupid or dishonest.