[reconditerose]

The tl;dr is it's just a lockless hashmap attached to a TCP server with a log. Simple Get/Set operations are highly optimized, so with high batching they are able to efficiently fetch a lot of data efficiently. The architectures scales very well when you add threads and data access that is uniform.

It struggles a bit on certain types of workloads like hot keys, think heavy hitting a single sorted set. It's a cool architecture.

[neonsunset]

There's more to it than just having a fast hashmap: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...

(I'd imagine implementing mechanisms for resilient storage and larger than memory data sizes would be the hard parts)

[arghwhat]

That's... Pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a KV store. It's a hashmap on the network.

[whizzter]

The difference is that Redis is single-threaded, the value proposition of Redis was/is a fast (in-memory) simple (single-threaded) server to serve things so much faster than a traditional DB. It was a perfect fit and became popular with the Ruby/Rails community,etc since those environments combined with traditional SQL servers are slogs compared to what a fast server like Redis could do.

As good as Redis is, modern computers with multiple cores potentially leaves a lot of performance on the table. Garnet seems to be a well designed multithread KV-store (though sadly the benchmark page doesn't list benchmark for more complex objects even if the simple cases looks good).