Alas, I have been more than once bitten by poorly implemented GIL and in my personal experience any GIL is problematic in a high-throughput environment. It simplifies the problem of implementation of environment or API for the price of introducing global lock into the system, thus eliminating any possibility of lockless design. And we know it's doable.
I spent years trying to work around GIL in production environments and we have the tools about now to do it reliably. We have on_commit in Django, we have Celery with proper support for mechanisms like chords and a myriad of others.
I do get that Redis has a different approach to many things. But here's the deal - every time I had to rely on Redis as a critical component, there was a problem. Either there was that "one gotcha" in the config or I didn't understood something or else.
A while ago I was a part of discussion with the author of Redis on using Redis as cache. And quite some people, not only me, noted they had bad experience and their benchmarks didn't show Redis is better than Memcached. And, I think that's ok. Unless you pose your product as a competitor to memcached. Would I use memcached-db? No, it's a bad idea.
My problem is that Redis originally was a key value store with datastructures. And that's a great idea and not that many services let you model datastructures in a distributed way. I actually implemented a distributed system of progress control for a very critical piece of architecture at my current workplace. I'm a Redis user since 2014 in regard to commercial products.
My point of view is probably largely skewed but I don't understand and I never seen that explained why Redis tries to do everything. We have battle tested Kafka for streams, ElasticSearch and Solr for searching and Memcached for caching. Can't we get a super reliable data store that supports data structures? A data store that is _able_ to utilize the fact we have more than one core?
I know my view is unpopular, but I don't see addition of GIL as a genius idea. I simply don't see a coherent direction for Redis development.
BTW: is there a benchmark comparing latest Redis without the GIL and the latest with GIL?
Alas, I have been more than once bitten by poorly implemented GIL and in my personal experience any GIL is problematic in a high-throughput environment. It simplifies the problem of implementation of environment or API for the price of introducing global lock into the system, thus eliminating any possibility of lockless design. And we know it's doable.
I spent years trying to work around GIL in production environments and we have the tools about now to do it reliably. We have on_commit in Django, we have Celery with proper support for mechanisms like chords and a myriad of others.
I do get that Redis has a different approach to many things. But here's the deal - every time I had to rely on Redis as a critical component, there was a problem. Either there was that "one gotcha" in the config or I didn't understood something or else.
A while ago I was a part of discussion with the author of Redis on using Redis as cache. And quite some people, not only me, noted they had bad experience and their benchmarks didn't show Redis is better than Memcached. And, I think that's ok. Unless you pose your product as a competitor to memcached. Would I use memcached-db? No, it's a bad idea.
My problem is that Redis originally was a key value store with datastructures. And that's a great idea and not that many services let you model datastructures in a distributed way. I actually implemented a distributed system of progress control for a very critical piece of architecture at my current workplace. I'm a Redis user since 2014 in regard to commercial products.
My point of view is probably largely skewed but I don't understand and I never seen that explained why Redis tries to do everything. We have battle tested Kafka for streams, ElasticSearch and Solr for searching and Memcached for caching. Can't we get a super reliable data store that supports data structures? A data store that is _able_ to utilize the fact we have more than one core?
I know my view is unpopular, but I don't see addition of GIL as a genius idea. I simply don't see a coherent direction for Redis development.
BTW: is there a benchmark comparing latest Redis without the GIL and the latest with GIL?