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.
This makes the replication code conceptually simpler by removing the
synchronous BGSAVE trigger in syncCommand(). This also means that
socket and disk BGSAVE targets are handled by the same code.
This makes the replication code conceptually simpler by removing the
synchronous BGSAVE trigger in syncCommand(). This also means that
socket and disk BGSAVE targets are handled by the same code.
It is possible to get better results by using the pool like in the LRU
case. Also from tests during the morning I believe the current
implementation has issues in the frequency decay function that should
decrease the counter at periodic intervals.
It is possible to get better results by using the pool like in the LRU
case. Also from tests during the morning I believe the current
implementation has issues in the frequency decay function that should
decrease the counter at periodic intervals.
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.
To destroy and recreate the pool[].key element is slow, so we allocate
in pool[].cached SDS strings that can account up to 255 chars keys and
try to reuse them. This provides a solid 20% performance improvement
in real world workload alike benchmarks.
To destroy and recreate the pool[].key element is slow, so we allocate
in pool[].cached SDS strings that can account up to 255 chars keys and
try to reuse them. This provides a solid 20% performance improvement
in real world workload alike benchmarks.
We start from the end of the pool to the initial item, zero-ing
every entry we use or every ghost entry, there is nothing to memmove
since to the right everything should be already set to NULL.
We start from the end of the pool to the initial item, zero-ing
every entry we use or every ghost entry, there is nothing to memmove
since to the right everything should be already set to NULL.
The rio structure is referenced in the global 'riostate' structure
in order for the logging functions to be always able to access the state
of the "pseudo-loading" of the RDB, needed for the check.
Courtesy of Valgrind.
The rio structure is referenced in the global 'riostate' structure
in order for the logging functions to be always able to access the state
of the "pseudo-loading" of the RDB, needed for the check.
Courtesy of Valgrind.
They were under /deps since they originate from a different source tree,
however at this point they are very modified and we took ownership of
both the files making changes, fixing bugs, so there is no upgrade path
from the original code tree.
Given that, better to move the code under /src with proper dependencies
and with a more simpler editing experience.
They were under /deps since they originate from a different source tree,
however at this point they are very modified and we took ownership of
both the files making changes, fixing bugs, so there is no upgrade path
from the original code tree.
Given that, better to move the code under /src with proper dependencies
and with a more simpler editing experience.
