Live data from Hacker News

Redis 3.0.0 is out

groups.google.com

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Redis 3.0.0 is out

#51
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you connecting to a Redis box across the internet? There's a great (and after Heartbleed, prophetic) post on the Varnish web site about why they don't implement SSL, I imagine Redis would be similar: https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/ssl.html

Varnish is other thing. For cross-datacenter replication you will want SSL. So for Redis Cluster it's a necessary thing.

For cross-datacenter replication you should be using a secured VPN anyway.

Re: Redis 3.0.0 is out

#52
I really like antirez approach to building system software. Build it step-by-step, iterate and very soon you have an amazing piece of software

Re: Redis 3.0.0 is out

#53
post #37

What is the best alternative for redis?

http://memcached.org/ used to be. I haven't done system architecture in about 2 years but when we were looking at in memory databases, it came down to Redis or Memcache. Depending on what you need your database for, there are some that perform better than others. You can check this site for comparisons: http://kkovacs.eu/cassandra-vs-mongodb-vs-couchdb-vs-redis

Redis is normally not in memory. Everything is written to disk and survives a power failure.

Memcached is just a cache. Don't store anything there you can't lose.

Re: Redis 3.0.0 is out

#54
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at HyperDex http://hyperdex.org/

Last time I looked into HyperDex it requires proprietary extensions to get access to all of its features.

That would be Warp[0], which adds ACID transactions across multiple keys.

[0] http://hyperdex.org/solutions/

Re: Redis 3.0.0 is out

#55

Still no SSL, so using redis-client still just spews your password out all over the internet.

Transport security is mostly better implemented via ipsec (a VPN tunnel).

I'm happy that redis doesn't implement SSL, it just shows that they are prioritizing relevant features.

Re: Redis 3.0.0 is out

#56
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Varnish is other thing. For cross-datacenter replication you will want SSL. So for Redis Cluster it's a necessary thing.

For cross-datacenter replication you should be using a secured VPN anyway.

No, if your db can use SSL, then additional layer of complexity is not required.

upd.: don't get me wrong, Redis is my favorite DB, really. But better to be objective.

Re: Redis 3.0.0 is out

#57
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For cross-datacenter replication you should be using a secured VPN anyway.

No, if your db can use SSL, then additional layer of complexity is not required. upd.: don't get me wrong, Redis is my favorite DB, really. But better to be objective.

It's hard to imagine every service in your infrastructure implementing SSL would be more secure than a single VPN tool. You are very optimistic about the difficulties of getting security right.

Re: Redis 3.0.0 is out

#58

Here's the full cluster spec: http://redis.io/topics/cluster-spec Looking forward to seeing it taken apart by aphyr. Congrats to Salvatore and the rest of the redis committers!

Is he still doing Jepsen tests? Thought he was doing Clojure work atm?

Re: Redis 3.0.0 is out

#59
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you connecting to a Redis box across the internet? There's a great (and after Heartbleed, prophetic) post on the Varnish web site about why they don't implement SSL, I imagine Redis would be similar: https://www.varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/phk/ssl.html

Varnish is other thing. For cross-datacenter replication you will want SSL. So for Redis Cluster it's a necessary thing.

Surely you would keep this in a private network? Layer 2/Encrypted VPNs?

Re: Redis 3.0.0 is out

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, if your db can use SSL, then additional layer of complexity is not required. upd.: don't get me wrong, Redis is my favorite DB, really. But better to be objective.

It's hard to imagine every service in your infrastructure implementing SSL would be more secure than a single VPN tool. You are very optimistic about the difficulties of getting security right.

It's really simple to imagine and I even have implemented it :) "One single VPN" may (and will) fail sometimes, so count your complexity and stability with and without one extra service.
Post reply on HN