Memcached design and comparison with Redis

Redis offers much more than Memcache, even it its at the cost of performance. The article assumes that everyone runs redis like they run memcached. They don't (http://blog.pivotal.io/pivotal/case-studies-2/case-study-how...) and if Salvatore were to fork memcached to try and get many of those features into memcached its doubtful the community would ever accept it. If providing those features came at the cost of performance, it would have been terrible for companies that actually depended on memcache being a fast in memory cache.

It isn't so much that "Redis is better" it is, Redis is more likely aligned with what you are trying to do and more flexible. However I doubt you could convince Facebook to replace memcache with Facebook, for any of the "engineering efforts" that were put into Redis. Likewise, I doubt Facebook would be running a fork of memcache that offered Redis-like features.

Article lost me here. is he saying that if the author of redis worked on memcache instead then mencache would be better? Ok.

Or is he saying redis would be better off if it had started as a fork of memcache? Bullshit. My understanding of redis is part of the reason for it was the author wanted to implement a data store from scratch, forking a mature project would have not motivated someone with that goal. Plus as a project matures it becomes harder and harder to make bigger changes. Even a small change requires tons of time. So redis would not have developed so quickly if not for starting from scratch.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2873249/is-memcached-a-di...

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23601622/if-redis-is-alre...