When a slave was disconnected from its master the replication offset was
reported as -1. Now it is reported as the replication offset of the
previous master, so that failover can be performed using this value in
order to try to select a slave with more processed data from a set of
slaves of the old master.
When a slave was disconnected from its master the replication offset was
reported as -1. Now it is reported as the replication offset of the
previous master, so that failover can be performed using this value in
order to try to select a slave with more processed data from a set of
slaves of the old master.
The previous fix for false positive timeout detected by master was not
complete. There is another blocking stage while loading data for the
first synchronization with the master, that is, flushing away the
current data from the DB memory.
This commit uses the newly introduced dict.c callback in order to make
some incremental work (to send "\n" heartbeats to the master) while
flushing the old data from memory.
It is hard to write a regression test for this issue unfortunately. More
support for debugging in the Redis core would be needed in terms of
functionalities to simulate a slow DB loading / deletion.
The previous fix for false positive timeout detected by master was not
complete. There is another blocking stage while loading data for the
first synchronization with the master, that is, flushing away the
current data from the DB memory.
This commit uses the newly introduced dict.c callback in order to make
some incremental work (to send "\n" heartbeats to the master) while
flushing the old data from memory.
It is hard to write a regression test for this issue unfortunately. More
support for debugging in the Redis core would be needed in terms of
functionalities to simulate a slow DB loading / deletion.
Redis hash table implementation has many non-blocking features like
incremental rehashing, however while deleting a large hash table there
was no way to have a callback called to do some incremental work.
This commit adds this support, as an optiona callback argument to
dictEmpty() that is currently called at a fixed interval (one time every
65k deletions).
Redis hash table implementation has many non-blocking features like
incremental rehashing, however while deleting a large hash table there
was no way to have a callback called to do some incremental work.
This commit adds this support, as an optiona callback argument to
dictEmpty() that is currently called at a fixed interval (one time every
65k deletions).
Starting with Redis 2.8 masters are able to detect timed out slaves,
while before 2.8 only slaves were able to detect a timed out master.
Now that timeout detection is bi-directional the following problem
happens as described "in the field" by issue #1449:
1) Master and slave setup with big dataset.
2) Slave performs the first synchronization, or a full sync
after a failed partial resync.
3) Master sends the RDB payload to the slave.
4) Slave loads this payload.
5) Master detects the slave as timed out since does not receive back the
REPLCONF ACK acknowledges.
Here the problem is that the master has no way to know how much the
slave will take to load the RDB file in memory. The obvious solution is
to use a greater replication timeout setting, but this is a shame since
for the 0.1% of operation time we are forced to use a timeout that is
not what is suited for 99.9% of operation time.
This commit tries to fix this problem with a solution that is a bit of
an hack, but that modifies little of the replication internals, in order
to be back ported to 2.8 safely.
During the RDB loading time, we send the master newlines to avoid
being sensed as timed out. This is the same that the master already does
while saving the RDB file to still signal its presence to the slave.
The single newline is used because:
1) It can't desync the protocol, as it is only transmitted all or
nothing.
2) It can be safely sent while we don't have a client structure for the
master or in similar situations just with write(2).
Starting with Redis 2.8 masters are able to detect timed out slaves,
while before 2.8 only slaves were able to detect a timed out master.
Now that timeout detection is bi-directional the following problem
happens as described "in the field" by issue #1449:
1) Master and slave setup with big dataset.
2) Slave performs the first synchronization, or a full sync
after a failed partial resync.
3) Master sends the RDB payload to the slave.
4) Slave loads this payload.
5) Master detects the slave as timed out since does not receive back the
REPLCONF ACK acknowledges.
Here the problem is that the master has no way to know how much the
slave will take to load the RDB file in memory. The obvious solution is
to use a greater replication timeout setting, but this is a shame since
for the 0.1% of operation time we are forced to use a timeout that is
not what is suited for 99.9% of operation time.
This commit tries to fix this problem with a solution that is a bit of
an hack, but that modifies little of the replication internals, in order
to be back ported to 2.8 safely.
During the RDB loading time, we send the master newlines to avoid
being sensed as timed out. This is the same that the master already does
while saving the RDB file to still signal its presence to the slave.
The single newline is used because:
1) It can't desync the protocol, as it is only transmitted all or
nothing.
2) It can be safely sent while we don't have a client structure for the
master or in similar situations just with write(2).
The way the role change was recoded was not sane and too much
convoluted, causing the role information to be not always updated.
This commit fixes issue #1445.
The way the role change was recoded was not sane and too much
convoluted, causing the role information to be not always updated.
This commit fixes issue #1445.
When there is a master address switch, the reported role must be set to
master so that we have a chance to re-sample the INFO output to check if
the new address is reporting the right role.
Otherwise if the role was wrong, it will be sensed as wrong even after
the address switch, and for enough time according to the role change
time, for Sentinel consider the master SDOWN.
This fixes isue #1446, that describes the effects of this bug in
practice.
When there is a master address switch, the reported role must be set to
master so that we have a chance to re-sample the INFO output to check if
the new address is reporting the right role.
Otherwise if the role was wrong, it will be sensed as wrong even after
the address switch, and for enough time according to the role change
time, for Sentinel consider the master SDOWN.
This fixes isue #1446, that describes the effects of this bug in
practice.
