+1. Good to know. I was just talking to a potential customer this morning that’s intent on replacing voldemort with an IMDG and wanting to merge whatever solution with their current Redis use cases. If its not ready I want to make sure I’m not giving bad information.
Wayne Lund Advisory Platform Architect 916.296.1893 wl...@pivotal.io > On Mar 8, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > +1 to marking it experimental now > > Once we do that I think it will be fine for the community to make breaking > changes to it if we need to. > > -- > Mike Stolz > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Galen M O'Sullivan <gosulli...@pivotal.io > <mailto:gosulli...@pivotal.io>> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think that we should mark the Redis adapter as experimental. This > functionality comes from the initial code grant from GemFire. It is mentioned > in the "Experimental" section of the GemFire docs [1], and as far as I can > tell, the only reason it hasn't been marked as experimental in Geode is > because no one put the annotation on when the @Experimental tag was > introduced. > > The Redis adapter's performance on collection operations is pretty bad (think > 1% of Redis on a single-server configuration), and there are some bugs > outstanding (for example, [2]), so I don't think it's really ready for > general use. > > What do you all think? Is anyone out there using the Redis adapter? Should it > be considered breaking to change it just because it's been released when it > wasn't marked experimental? Should we just go ahead and change it already? > > Thanks, > Galen > > [1]: http://gemfire.docs.pivotal.io/geode/tools_modules/redis_adapter.html > <http://gemfire.docs.pivotal.io/geode/tools_modules/redis_adapter.html> > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2473 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2473> >
