Redis is a great piece of tech but it suffers from trying to be good at two different jobs (persistent data structures, volatile cache) which should not be combined. And indeed in Redis itself they don't combine well - persistence is globally on or off.
Personally I'd use memcached or some equivalent for strictly cacheing, and then bring on Redis with persistence if you need its data structures for e.g scoreboards.
At $WORK we never imported either, our cache layer for slow operations keeps its data in both the filesystem and a db table (used as a k/v store). The database helps coordinate thundering herd problems - this operation is being calculated by another thread, so just wait for it. Reads from the same server just hit the filesystem, and reads from another server hit the db once and then keep it in the filesystem. We could change the fs layer to memcached but so far it's working great.
I had some experience wrangling Memcachedb (memcache + bdb for persistence) in the late 2000s, and came to much the same conclusion.
Redis was definitely more featureful, and antirez is both an engaging character and admirably humble, so I can see why redis overtook it in popularity - but, for me, memcached has always been the pinnacle of "choose boring technology".
As a platform engineer, I'm happy to support either - but when developers start using some of the more advanced redis features (persistence, replication, clustering), I try to make sure that they've fully understood the downsides of that decision.
> We could change the fs layer to memcached but so far it's working great.
This so much. (Ab)Using a db table as a k/v store + the FS can do so much before even considering paying the price of setting up a dedicated caching store. I’ve fought countless foes in the engineering world when proposing solutions like yours just because (incompetent) people feel like caching should live in its dedicated store.
Because a database is a kv store. Most workloads won't tell the performance difference as long as the store works.