That's kinda an obtuse version of a middlebrow dismissal. You're positioning yourself as "of course—I knew better all along! Bow before my foresight!"
In other anecdotal evidence, I've been using Redis as a persistent store since 2011 and haven't lost any data.
There's always the giant caveat: just because software says it does X doesn't mean it does X until you have seen it actually happen. In this case, restarting a zero-persistence master was bad because it goes run->die->restart[empty]. Then, the replicas immediately reconnect, resync[empty], and now they are completely up to date with the master (which is the only Redis contract asked for here: always be an exact copy of your master; since persistence was not requested, the replicas re-sync an empty dataset).
In better news: there are already fixes for each of these issues showing up in Redis very quite Real Soon Now.
Anyway. Redis is considerably mature but still have edge cases that will literally void all you data. And that's definitely not okay when it's being used as your source of truth.
In other anecdotal evidence, I've been using Redis as a persistent store since 2011 and haven't lost any data.
There's always the giant caveat: just because software says it does X doesn't mean it does X until you have seen it actually happen. In this case, restarting a zero-persistence master was bad because it goes run->die->restart[empty]. Then, the replicas immediately reconnect, resync[empty], and now they are completely up to date with the master (which is the only Redis contract asked for here: always be an exact copy of your master; since persistence was not requested, the replicas re-sync an empty dataset).
In better news: there are already fixes for each of these issues showing up in Redis very quite Real Soon Now.