This code was extracted from @oranagra PR #3223 and modified in order
to provide only certain amounts of information compared to the original
code. It was also moved from DEBUG to the newly introduced MEMORY
command. Thanks to Oran for the implementation and the PR.
It implements detailed memory usage stats that can be useful in both
provisioning and troubleshooting memory usage in Redis.
This code was extracted from @oranagra PR #3223 and modified in order
to provide only certain amounts of information compared to the original
code. It was also moved from DEBUG to the newly introduced MEMORY
command. Thanks to Oran for the implementation and the PR.
It implements detailed memory usage stats that can be useful in both
provisioning and troubleshooting memory usage in Redis.
For most tasks, we need the memory estimation to be O(1) by default.
This commit also implements an initial MEMORY command.
Note that objectComputeSize() takes the number of samples to check as
argument, so MEMORY should be able to get the sample size as option
to make precision VS CPU tradeoff tunable.
Related to: PR #3223.
For most tasks, we need the memory estimation to be O(1) by default.
This commit also implements an initial MEMORY command.
Note that objectComputeSize() takes the number of samples to check as
argument, so MEMORY should be able to get the sample size as option
to make precision VS CPU tradeoff tunable.
Related to: PR #3223.
This is an attempt at mitigating problems due to cross protocol
scripting, an attack targeting services using line oriented protocols
like Redis that can accept HTTP requests as valid protocol, by
discarding the invalid parts and accepting the payloads sent, for
example, via a POST request.
For this to be effective, when we detect POST and Host: and terminate
the connection asynchronously, the networking code was modified in order
to never process further input. It was later verified that in a
pipelined request containing a POST command, the successive commands are
not executed.
This is an attempt at mitigating problems due to cross protocol
scripting, an attack targeting services using line oriented protocols
like Redis that can accept HTTP requests as valid protocol, by
discarding the invalid parts and accepting the payloads sent, for
example, via a POST request.
For this to be effective, when we detect POST and Host: and terminate
the connection asynchronously, the networking code was modified in order
to never process further input. It was later verified that in a
pipelined request containing a POST command, the successive commands are
not executed.
This feature is useful, especially in deployments using Sentinel in
order to setup Redis HA, where the slave is executed with NAT or port
forwarding, so that the auto-detected port/ip addresses, as listed in
the "INFO replication" output of the master, or as provided by the
"ROLE" command, don't match the real addresses at which the slave is
reachable for connections.
This feature is useful, especially in deployments using Sentinel in
order to setup Redis HA, where the slave is executed with NAT or port
forwarding, so that the auto-detected port/ip addresses, as listed in
the "INFO replication" output of the master, or as provided by the
"ROLE" command, don't match the real addresses at which the slave is
reachable for connections.
This patch, written in collaboration with Oran Agra (@oranagra) is a companion
to 780a8b1. Together the two patches should avoid that the AOF and RDB saving
processes can be spawned at the same time. Previously conditions that
could lead to two saving processes at the same time were:
1. When AOF is enabled via CONFIG SET and an RDB saving process is
already active.
2. When the SYNC command decides to start an RDB saving process ASAP in
order to serve a new slave that cannot partially resynchronize (but
only if we have a disk target for replication, for diskless
replication there is not such a problem).
Condition "1" is not very severe but "2" can happen often and is
definitely good at degrading Redis performances in an unexpected way.
The two commits have the effect of always spawning RDB savings for
replication in replicationCron() instead of attempting to start an RDB
save synchronously. Moreover when a BGSAVE or AOF rewrite must be
performed, they are instead just postponed using flags that will try to
perform such operations ASAP.
Finally the BGSAVE command was modified in order to accept a SCHEDULE
option so that if an AOF rewrite is in progress, when this option is
given, the command no longer returns an error, but instead schedules an
RDB rewrite operation for when it will be possible to start it.
This patch, written in collaboration with Oran Agra (@oranagra) is a companion
to 780a8b1. Together the two patches should avoid that the AOF and RDB saving
processes can be spawned at the same time. Previously conditions that
could lead to two saving processes at the same time were:
1. When AOF is enabled via CONFIG SET and an RDB saving process is
already active.
2. When the SYNC command decides to start an RDB saving process ASAP in
order to serve a new slave that cannot partially resynchronize (but
only if we have a disk target for replication, for diskless
replication there is not such a problem).
Condition "1" is not very severe but "2" can happen often and is
definitely good at degrading Redis performances in an unexpected way.
The two commits have the effect of always spawning RDB savings for
replication in replicationCron() instead of attempting to start an RDB
save synchronously. Moreover when a BGSAVE or AOF rewrite must be
performed, they are instead just postponed using flags that will try to
perform such operations ASAP.
Finally the BGSAVE command was modified in order to accept a SCHEDULE
option so that if an AOF rewrite is in progress, when this option is
given, the command no longer returns an error, but instead schedules an
RDB rewrite operation for when it will be possible to start it.
The LRU eviction code used to make local choices: for each DB visited it
selected the best key to evict. This was repeated for each DB. However
this means that there could be DBs with very frequently accessed keys
that are targeted by the LRU algorithm while there were other DBs with
many better candidates to expire.
This commit attempts to fix this problem for the LRU policy. However the
TTL policy is still not fixed by this commit. The TTL policy will be
fixed in a successive commit.
This is an initial (partial because of TTL policy) fix for issue #2647.
The LRU eviction code used to make local choices: for each DB visited it
selected the best key to evict. This was repeated for each DB. However
this means that there could be DBs with very frequently accessed keys
that are targeted by the LRU algorithm while there were other DBs with
many better candidates to expire.
This commit attempts to fix this problem for the LRU policy. However the
TTL policy is still not fixed by this commit. The TTL policy will be
fixed in a successive commit.
This is an initial (partial because of TTL policy) fix for issue #2647.
