IBM Cloud Databases for Redis vs NetApp Global File Cache comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Ranking
Views
152
Comparisons
63
Reviews
0
Average Words per Review
0
Rating
N/A
Views
164
Comparisons
89
Reviews
0
Average Words per Review
0
Rating
N/A
Comparisons
Learn More
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 proven intelligent Global File Cache allows distributed enterprises to securely consolidate silos of file servers into one cohesive global storage footprint in the public cloud, which streamlines overall IT management, significantly cuts costs and boosts business productivity on a global scale.

Sample Customers
Information Not Available
FACTO GEO, RobertBird Group, METROMONT

IBM Cloud Databases for Redis is ranked 8th in In-Memory Data Store Services while NetApp Global File Cache is ranked 7th in In-Memory Data Store Services. IBM Cloud Databases for Redis is rated 0.0, while NetApp Global File Cache is rated 0.0. On the other hand, IBM Cloud Databases for Redis is most compared with , whereas NetApp Global File Cache is most compared with Varnish Cloud.

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.