How is it misleading when the whole point is that Redis can only be single threaded†? That's why Dragonfly (claims) to scale better. If anything, it's the Redis rebuttal that comes across as misleading; the posted announcement is very up front that Dragonfly's value proposition is that you get vertical scaling for free without having the additional ops overhead of a Redis cluster, which is very much not free in terms of maintenance and opportunity cost.

†: Redis 6 added threads, but AFAIK this is only for handling connection I/O. Actual database access is still single threaded. The only way I'm aware of to scale Redis is via clustering.

> How is it misleading

It's misleading because the comparison would be redis cluster vs dragonfly. There's no speed-up if the Redis user isn't fully saturating a single core. The real question is why is it only 25x faster on a 64-vCPU machine? Why isn't it 64x? Does this mean it's 60% slower when the request volume is below the needs of a single-threaded redis?

> Dragonfly's value proposition

Dragonfly has zero value proposition other than a ticking-time-bomb of pricing fuckery when they're forced to yield a return on that $21M investment.

It compares a process with a listening port with another process with a listening port. To give another example - nobody compares minio with bunch of disks to which you can write separately, and probably more efficiently.