Compare IBM Cloud Databases for Redis vs. NetApp Global File Cache Core

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Ranking
Views
40
Comparisons
33
Reviews
0
Average Words per Review
0
Rating
N/A
Views
0
Comparisons
0
Reviews
0
Average Words per Review
0
Rating
N/A
Popular Comparisons
Learn
IBM
NetApp
Video Not Available
Overview

Databases for Redis gives two Redis instances—a master and a replica member—with Redis sentinels monitoring both. Accessing the database is managed through a single Kubernetes Nodeport, behind which one or more HAProxy instances handle all the traffic. It’s the HAProxy instances that manage to which we’ve added support for TLS/SSL encryption for incoming connections to the Redis server—something Redis doesn’t do out-of-the-box currently.

NetApp's intelligent Global File Cache creates a software fabric that caches “active data” sets in distributed offices globally.

Offer
Learn more about IBM Cloud Databases for Redis
Learn more about NetApp Global File Cache Core
Sample Customers
Information Not Available
FACTO GEO, RobertBird Group, METROMONT

IBM Cloud Databases for Redis is ranked 4th in In-Memory Data Store Services while NetApp Global File Cache Core is ranked 9th in In-Memory Data Store Services. IBM Cloud Databases for Redis is rated 0.0, while NetApp Global File Cache Core is rated 0.0. On the other hand, IBM Cloud Databases for Redis is most compared with Google Cloud Memorystore, whereas NetApp Global File Cache Core is most compared with .

See our list of best In-Memory Data Store Services vendors.

We monitor all In-Memory Data Store Services reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.