It is possible to do BGREWRITEAOF even if appendonly=no. This is by design.
stopAppendonly() didn't turn off aof_rewrite_scheduled (it can be turned on
again by BGREWRITEAOF even while appendonly is off anyway).
After configuring `appendonly yes` it will see that the state is AOF_OFF,
there's no RDB fork, so it will do rewriteAppendOnlyFileBackground() which
will fail since the aof_child_pid is set (was scheduled and started by cron).
Solution:
stopAppendonly() will turn off the schedule flag (regardless of who asked for it).
startAppendonly() will terminate any existing fork and start a new one (so it is the most recent).
When feeding the master with a high rate traffic the the slave's feed is much slower.
This causes the replication buffer to grow (indefinitely) which leads to slave disconnection.
The problem is that writeToClient() decides to stop writing after NET_MAX_WRITES_PER_EVENT
writes (In order to be fair to clients).
We should ignore this when the client is a slave.
It's better if clients wait longer, the alternative is that the slave has no chance to stay in
sync in this situation.
When feeding the master with a high rate traffic the the slave's feed is much slower.
This causes the replication buffer to grow (indefinitely) which leads to slave disconnection.
The problem is that writeToClient() decides to stop writing after NET_MAX_WRITES_PER_EVENT
writes (In order to be fair to clients).
We should ignore this when the client is a slave.
It's better if clients wait longer, the alternative is that the slave has no chance to stay in
sync in this situation.
When feeding the master with a high rate traffic the the slave's feed is much slower.
This causes the replication buffer to grow (indefinitely) which leads to slave disconnection.
The problem is that writeToClient() decides to stop writing after NET_MAX_WRITES_PER_EVENT
writes (In order to be fair to clients).
We should ignore this when the client is a slave.
It's better if clients wait longer, the alternative is that the slave has no chance to stay in
sync in this situation.
See #3462 and related PRs.
We use a simple algorithm to calculate the level of affinity violation,
and then an optimizer that performs random swaps until things improve.
See #3462 and related PRs.
We use a simple algorithm to calculate the level of affinity violation,
and then an optimizer that performs random swaps until things improve.
See #3462 and related PRs.
We use a simple algorithm to calculate the level of affinity violation,
and then an optimizer that performs random swaps until things improve.
after a slave is promoted (assuming it has no slaves
and it booted over an hour ago), it will lose it's replication
backlog at the next replication cron, rather than waiting for slaves
to connect to it.
so on a simple master/slave faiover, if the new slave doesn't connect
immediately, it may be too later and PSYNC2 will fail.
after a slave is promoted (assuming it has no slaves
and it booted over an hour ago), it will lose it's replication
backlog at the next replication cron, rather than waiting for slaves
to connect to it.
so on a simple master/slave faiover, if the new slave doesn't connect
immediately, it may be too later and PSYNC2 will fail.
after a slave is promoted (assuming it has no slaves
and it booted over an hour ago), it will lose it's replication
backlog at the next replication cron, rather than waiting for slaves
to connect to it.
so on a simple master/slave faiover, if the new slave doesn't connect
immediately, it may be too later and PSYNC2 will fail.
