Many Redis and Memcached clusters still use legacy x86-based node types (e.g., cache.r5, cache.m5) even though Graviton-based alternatives are available. In-memory workloads tend to be highly compatible with Graviton due to their simplicity and reliance on standard CPU and memory usage patterns.Unless constrained by architecture-specific extensions or strict compliance requirements, most ElastiCache clusters can be transitioned with no application-level changes. Failing to migrate to Graviton results in unnecessary compute spend and missed opportunities to improve cache efficiency.
Many workloads default to using Redis or Memcached without evaluating whether a lighter or more efficient engine would provide equivalent functionality at lower cost. Valkey is a Redis-compatible, open-source engine supported by ElastiCache that may offer improved price-performance and licensing benefits. For read-heavy or stateless workloads that don’t require Redis-specific features (e.g., persistence, advanced replication), Valkey can often be used as a drop-in replacement. Memcached, while simple, lacks key features like replication and persistence, and may be less cost-effective for certain access patterns. Choosing the wrong engine can result in overpaying for capabilities that aren’t needed — or missing opportunities to optimize.
ElastiCache clusters are often sized for peak performance or reliability assumptions that no longer reflect current workload needs. When memory and CPU usage remain consistently low, the node is likely overprovisioned. For Redis, memory is typically the primary sizing constraint, while Memcached workloads may be more CPU-sensitive. In dev, staging, or lightly used production environments, some nodes may be entirely idle.It's important to evaluate usage patterns in context — for example, replica nodes in Redis Multi-AZ configurations may show low utilization by design, but still serve a high-availability purpose. However, in non-critical environments or where HA is not required, those nodes can often be downsized or removed. Additionally, older ElastiCache instance types (e.g., r4, m3) are frequently less cost-efficient than newer generations like r6g or r7g, offering further savings through modernization.
Some ElastiCache clusters continue to run on older-generation node types that have since been replaced by newer, more cost-effective options. This can happen due to legacy templates, lack of version validation, or infrastructure that has not been reviewed in years. Newer instance families often deliver better performance at a lower hourly rate. Modernizing to newer node types can reduce compute spend without sacrificing performance, and in many cases, improve it.
