All the internal state of cluster involving time is now using mstime_t
and mstime() in order to use milliseconds resolution.
Also the clusterCron() function is called with a 10 hz frequency instead
of 1 hz.
The cluster node_timeout must be also configured in milliseconds by the
user in redis.conf.
All the internal state of cluster involving time is now using mstime_t
and mstime() in order to use milliseconds resolution.
Also the clusterCron() function is called with a 10 hz frequency instead
of 1 hz.
The cluster node_timeout must be also configured in milliseconds by the
user in redis.conf.
When a slave requests our vote, the configEpoch he claims for its master
and the set of served slots must be greater or equal to the configEpoch
of the nodes serving these slots in the current configuraiton of the
master granting its vote.
In other terms, masters don't vote for slaves having a stale
configuration for the slots they want to serve.
When a slave requests our vote, the configEpoch he claims for its master
and the set of served slots must be greater or equal to the configEpoch
of the nodes serving these slots in the current configuraiton of the
master granting its vote.
In other terms, masters don't vote for slaves having a stale
configuration for the slots they want to serve.
Sometimes when we resurrect a cached master after a successful partial
resynchronization attempt, there is pending data in the output buffers
of the client structure representing the master (likely REPLCONF ACK
commands).
If we don't reinstall the write handler, it will never be installed
again by addReply*() family functions as they'll assume that if there is
already data pending, the write handler is already installed.
This bug caused some slaves after a successful partial sync to never
send REPLCONF ACK, and continuously being detected as timing out by the
master, with a disconnection / reconnection loop.
Sometimes when we resurrect a cached master after a successful partial
resynchronization attempt, there is pending data in the output buffers
of the client structure representing the master (likely REPLCONF ACK
commands).
If we don't reinstall the write handler, it will never be installed
again by addReply*() family functions as they'll assume that if there is
already data pending, the write handler is already installed.
This bug caused some slaves after a successful partial sync to never
send REPLCONF ACK, and continuously being detected as timing out by the
master, with a disconnection / reconnection loop.
Sometimes when we resurrect a cached master after a successful partial
resynchronization attempt, there is pending data in the output buffers
of the client structure representing the master (likely REPLCONF ACK
commands).
If we don't reinstall the write handler, it will never be installed
again by addReply*() family functions as they'll assume that if there is
already data pending, the write handler is already installed.
This bug caused some slaves after a successful partial sync to never
send REPLCONF ACK, and continuously being detected as timing out by the
master, with a disconnection / reconnection loop.
Sometimes when we resurrect a cached master after a successful partial
resynchronization attempt, there is pending data in the output buffers
of the client structure representing the master (likely REPLCONF ACK
commands).
If we don't reinstall the write handler, it will never be installed
again by addReply*() family functions as they'll assume that if there is
already data pending, the write handler is already installed.
This bug caused some slaves after a successful partial sync to never
send REPLCONF ACK, and continuously being detected as timing out by the
master, with a disconnection / reconnection loop.
Since we started sending REPLCONF ACK from slaves to masters, the
lastinteraction field of the client structure is always refreshed as
soon as there is room in the socket output buffer, so masters in timeout
are detected with too much delay (the socket buffer takes a lot of time
to be filled by small REPLCONF ACK <number> entries).
This commit only counts data received as interactions with a master,
solving the issue.
Since we started sending REPLCONF ACK from slaves to masters, the
lastinteraction field of the client structure is always refreshed as
soon as there is room in the socket output buffer, so masters in timeout
are detected with too much delay (the socket buffer takes a lot of time
to be filled by small REPLCONF ACK <number> entries).
This commit only counts data received as interactions with a master,
solving the issue.
Since we started sending REPLCONF ACK from slaves to masters, the
lastinteraction field of the client structure is always refreshed as
soon as there is room in the socket output buffer, so masters in timeout
are detected with too much delay (the socket buffer takes a lot of time
to be filled by small REPLCONF ACK <number> entries).
This commit only counts data received as interactions with a master,
solving the issue.
Since we started sending REPLCONF ACK from slaves to masters, the
lastinteraction field of the client structure is always refreshed as
soon as there is room in the socket output buffer, so masters in timeout
are detected with too much delay (the socket buffer takes a lot of time
to be filled by small REPLCONF ACK <number> entries).
This commit only counts data received as interactions with a master,
solving the issue.
There was a bug that over-esteemed the amount of backlog available,
however this could only happen when a slave was asking for an offset
that was in the "future" compared to the master replication backlog.
Now this case is handled well and logged as an incident in the master
log file.
There was a bug that over-esteemed the amount of backlog available,
however this could only happen when a slave was asking for an offset
that was in the "future" compared to the master replication backlog.
Now this case is handled well and logged as an incident in the master
log file.
There was a bug that over-esteemed the amount of backlog available,
however this could only happen when a slave was asking for an offset
that was in the "future" compared to the master replication backlog.
Now this case is handled well and logged as an incident in the master
log file.
There was a bug that over-esteemed the amount of backlog available,
however this could only happen when a slave was asking for an offset
that was in the "future" compared to the master replication backlog.
Now this case is handled well and logged as an incident in the master
log file.
The new API is able to remember operations to perform before returning
to the event loop, such as checking if there is the failover quorum for
a slave, save and fsync the configuraiton file, and so forth.
Because this operations are performed before returning on the event
loop we are sure that messages that are sent in the same event loop run
will be delivered *after* the configuration is already saved, that is a
requirement sometimes. For instance we want to publish a new epoch only
when it is already stored in nodes.conf in order to avoid returning back
in the logical clock when a node is restarted.
This new API provides a big performance advantage compared to saving and
possibly fsyncing the configuration file multiple times in the same
event loop run, especially in the case of big clusters with tens or
hundreds of nodes.
The new API is able to remember operations to perform before returning
to the event loop, such as checking if there is the failover quorum for
a slave, save and fsync the configuraiton file, and so forth.
Because this operations are performed before returning on the event
loop we are sure that messages that are sent in the same event loop run
will be delivered *after* the configuration is already saved, that is a
requirement sometimes. For instance we want to publish a new epoch only
when it is already stored in nodes.conf in order to avoid returning back
in the logical clock when a node is restarted.
This new API provides a big performance advantage compared to saving and
possibly fsyncing the configuration file multiple times in the same
event loop run, especially in the case of big clusters with tens or
hundreds of nodes.
