come to think of it, in theory (not in practice), getDecodedObject can
return the same original object with refcount incremented, so the
pointer comparision in the previous commit was invalid.
so now instead of checking the encoding, we explicitly check the
refcount.
come to think of it, in theory (not in practice), getDecodedObject can
return the same original object with refcount incremented, so the
pointer comparision in the previous commit was invalid.
so now instead of checking the encoding, we explicitly check the
refcount.
since the recent addition of OBJ_STATIC_REFCOUNT and the assertion in
incrRefCount it is now impossible to use dictFind using a static robj,
because dictEncObjKeyCompare will call getDecodedObject which tries to
increment the refcount just in order to decrement it later.
since the recent addition of OBJ_STATIC_REFCOUNT and the assertion in
incrRefCount it is now impossible to use dictFind using a static robj,
because dictEncObjKeyCompare will call getDecodedObject which tries to
increment the refcount just in order to decrement it later.
When deffered reply is added the previous reply node cannot be used so
all the extra space we allocated in it is wasted. in case someone uses
deffered replies in a loop, each time adding a small reply, each of
these reply nodes (the small string reply) would have consumed a 16k
block.
now when we add anther diferred reply node, we trim the unused portion
of the previous reply block.
see #7123
When deffered reply is added the previous reply node cannot be used so
all the extra space we allocated in it is wasted. in case someone uses
deffered replies in a loop, each time adding a small reply, each of
these reply nodes (the small string reply) would have consumed a 16k
block.
now when we add anther diferred reply node, we trim the unused portion
of the previous reply block.
see #7123
Now both master and replicas keep track of the last replication offset
that contains meaningful data (ignoring the tailing pings), and both
trim that tail from the replication backlog, and the offset with which
they try to use for psync.
the implication is that if someone missed some pings, or even have
excessive pings that the promoted replica has, it'll still be able to
psync (avoid full sync).
the downside (which was already committed) is that replicas running old
code may fail to psync, since the promoted replica trims pings form it's
backlog.
This commit adds a test that reproduces several cases of promotions and
demotions with stale and non-stale pings
Background:
The mearningful offset on the master was added recently to solve a problem were
the master is left all alone, injecting PINGs into it's backlog when no one is
listening and then gets demoted and tries to replicate from a replica that didn't
have any of the PINGs (or at least not the last ones).
however, consider this case:
master A has two replicas (B and C) replicating directly from it.
there's no traffic at all, and also no network issues, just many pings in the
tail of the backlog. now B gets promoted, A becomes a replica of B, and C
remains a replica of A. when A gets demoted, it trims the pings from its
backlog, and successfully replicate from B. however, C is still aware of
these PINGs, when it'll disconnect and re-connect to A, it'll ask for something
that's not in the backlog anymore (since A trimmed the tail of it's backlog),
and be forced to do a full sync (something it didn't have to do before the
meaningful offset fix).
Besides that, the psync2 test was always failing randomly here and there, it
turns out the reason were PINGs. Investigating it shows the following scenario:
cycle 1: redis #1 is master, and all the rest are direct replicas of #1
cycle 2: redis #2 is promoted to master, #1 is a replica of #2 and #3 is replica of #1
now we see that when #1 is demoted it prints:
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:38.523 * Using the meaningful offset 3929963 instead of 3929977 to exclude the final PINGs (14 bytes difference)
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:39.391 * Trying a partial resynchronization (request e2b3f8817735fdfe5fa4626766daa938b61419e5:3929964).
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:39.392 * Successful partial resynchronization with master.
and when #3 connects to the demoted #2, #2 says:
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:40.084 * Partial resynchronization not accepted: Requested offset for secondary ID was 3929978, but I can reply up to 3929964
so the issue here is that the meaningful offset feature saved the day for the
demoted master (since it needs to sync from a replica that didn't get the last
ping), but it didn't help one of the other replicas which did get the last ping.
Now both master and replicas keep track of the last replication offset
that contains meaningful data (ignoring the tailing pings), and both
trim that tail from the replication backlog, and the offset with which
they try to use for psync.
the implication is that if someone missed some pings, or even have
excessive pings that the promoted replica has, it'll still be able to
psync (avoid full sync).
the downside (which was already committed) is that replicas running old
code may fail to psync, since the promoted replica trims pings form it's
backlog.
This commit adds a test that reproduces several cases of promotions and
demotions with stale and non-stale pings
Background:
The mearningful offset on the master was added recently to solve a problem were
the master is left all alone, injecting PINGs into it's backlog when no one is
listening and then gets demoted and tries to replicate from a replica that didn't
have any of the PINGs (or at least not the last ones).
however, consider this case:
master A has two replicas (B and C) replicating directly from it.
there's no traffic at all, and also no network issues, just many pings in the
tail of the backlog. now B gets promoted, A becomes a replica of B, and C
remains a replica of A. when A gets demoted, it trims the pings from its
backlog, and successfully replicate from B. however, C is still aware of
these PINGs, when it'll disconnect and re-connect to A, it'll ask for something
that's not in the backlog anymore (since A trimmed the tail of it's backlog),
and be forced to do a full sync (something it didn't have to do before the
meaningful offset fix).
Besides that, the psync2 test was always failing randomly here and there, it
turns out the reason were PINGs. Investigating it shows the following scenario:
cycle 1: redis #1 is master, and all the rest are direct replicas of #1
cycle 2: redis #2 is promoted to master, #1 is a replica of #2 and #3 is replica of #1
now we see that when #1 is demoted it prints:
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:38.523 * Using the meaningful offset 3929963 instead of 3929977 to exclude the final PINGs (14 bytes difference)
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:39.391 * Trying a partial resynchronization (request e2b3f8817735fdfe5fa4626766daa938b61419e5:3929964).
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:39.392 * Successful partial resynchronization with master.
and when #3 connects to the demoted #2, #2 says:
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:40.084 * Partial resynchronization not accepted: Requested offset for secondary ID was 3929978, but I can reply up to 3929964
so the issue here is that the meaningful offset feature saved the day for the
demoted master (since it needs to sync from a replica that didn't get the last
ping), but it didn't help one of the other replicas which did get the last ping.
If redis crashes early, before lua is set up (like, if File Descriptor 0 is closed before exec), it will crash again trying to print memory statistics.
If redis crashes early, before lua is set up (like, if File Descriptor 0 is closed before exec), it will crash again trying to print memory statistics.
Now both master and replicas keep track of the last replication offset
that contains meaningful data (ignoring the tailing pings), and both
trim that tail from the replication backlog, and the offset with which
they try to use for psync.
the implication is that if someone missed some pings, or even have
excessive pings that the promoted replica has, it'll still be able to
psync (avoid full sync).
the downside (which was already committed) is that replicas running old
code may fail to psync, since the promoted replica trims pings form it's
backlog.
This commit adds a test that reproduces several cases of promotions and
demotions with stale and non-stale pings
Background:
The mearningful offset on the master was added recently to solve a problem were
the master is left all alone, injecting PINGs into it's backlog when no one is
listening and then gets demoted and tries to replicate from a replica that didn't
have any of the PINGs (or at least not the last ones).
however, consider this case:
master A has two replicas (B and C) replicating directly from it.
there's no traffic at all, and also no network issues, just many pings in the
tail of the backlog. now B gets promoted, A becomes a replica of B, and C
remains a replica of A. when A gets demoted, it trims the pings from its
backlog, and successfully replicate from B. however, C is still aware of
these PINGs, when it'll disconnect and re-connect to A, it'll ask for something
that's not in the backlog anymore (since A trimmed the tail of it's backlog),
and be forced to do a full sync (something it didn't have to do before the
meaningful offset fix).
Besides that, the psync2 test was always failing randomly here and there, it
turns out the reason were PINGs. Investigating it shows the following scenario:
cycle 1: redis #1 is master, and all the rest are direct replicas of #1
cycle 2: redis #2 is promoted to master, #1 is a replica of #2 and #3 is replica of #1
now we see that when #1 is demoted it prints:
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:38.523 * Using the meaningful offset 3929963 instead of 3929977 to exclude the final PINGs (14 bytes difference)
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:39.391 * Trying a partial resynchronization (request e2b3f8817735fdfe5fa4626766daa938b61419e5:3929964).
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:39.392 * Successful partial resynchronization with master.
and when #3 connects to the demoted #2, #2 says:
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:40.084 * Partial resynchronization not accepted: Requested offset for secondary ID was 3929978, but I can reply up to 3929964
so the issue here is that the meaningful offset feature saved the day for the
demoted master (since it needs to sync from a replica that didn't get the last
ping), but it didn't help one of the other replicas which did get the last ping.
Now both master and replicas keep track of the last replication offset
that contains meaningful data (ignoring the tailing pings), and both
trim that tail from the replication backlog, and the offset with which
they try to use for psync.
the implication is that if someone missed some pings, or even have
excessive pings that the promoted replica has, it'll still be able to
psync (avoid full sync).
the downside (which was already committed) is that replicas running old
code may fail to psync, since the promoted replica trims pings form it's
backlog.
This commit adds a test that reproduces several cases of promotions and
demotions with stale and non-stale pings
Background:
The mearningful offset on the master was added recently to solve a problem were
the master is left all alone, injecting PINGs into it's backlog when no one is
listening and then gets demoted and tries to replicate from a replica that didn't
have any of the PINGs (or at least not the last ones).
however, consider this case:
master A has two replicas (B and C) replicating directly from it.
there's no traffic at all, and also no network issues, just many pings in the
tail of the backlog. now B gets promoted, A becomes a replica of B, and C
remains a replica of A. when A gets demoted, it trims the pings from its
backlog, and successfully replicate from B. however, C is still aware of
these PINGs, when it'll disconnect and re-connect to A, it'll ask for something
that's not in the backlog anymore (since A trimmed the tail of it's backlog),
and be forced to do a full sync (something it didn't have to do before the
meaningful offset fix).
Besides that, the psync2 test was always failing randomly here and there, it
turns out the reason were PINGs. Investigating it shows the following scenario:
cycle 1: redis #1 is master, and all the rest are direct replicas of #1
cycle 2: redis #2 is promoted to master, #1 is a replica of #2 and #3 is replica of #1
now we see that when #1 is demoted it prints:
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:38.523 * Using the meaningful offset 3929963 instead of 3929977 to exclude the final PINGs (14 bytes difference)
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:39.391 * Trying a partial resynchronization (request e2b3f8817735fdfe5fa4626766daa938b61419e5:3929964).
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:39.392 * Successful partial resynchronization with master.
and when #3 connects to the demoted #2, #2 says:
17339:S 21 Apr 2020 11:16:40.084 * Partial resynchronization not accepted: Requested offset for secondary ID was 3929978, but I can reply up to 3929964
so the issue here is that the meaningful offset feature saved the day for the
demoted master (since it needs to sync from a replica that didn't get the last
ping), but it didn't help one of the other replicas which did get the last ping.
STRALGO should be a container for mostly read-only string
algorithms in Redis. The algorithms should have two main
characteristics:
1. They should be non trivial to compute, and often not part of
programming language standard libraries.
2. They should be fast enough that it is a good idea to have optimized C
implementations.
Next thing I would love to see? A small strings compression algorithm.
STRALGO should be a container for mostly read-only string
algorithms in Redis. The algorithms should have two main
characteristics:
1. They should be non trivial to compute, and often not part of
programming language standard libraries.
2. They should be fast enough that it is a good idea to have optimized C
implementations.
Next thing I would love to see? A small strings compression algorithm.
STRALGO should be a container for mostly read-only string
algorithms in Redis. The algorithms should have two main
characteristics:
1. They should be non trivial to compute, and often not part of
programming language standard libraries.
2. They should be fast enough that it is a good idea to have optimized C
implementations.
Next thing I would love to see? A small strings compression algorithm.
STRALGO should be a container for mostly read-only string
algorithms in Redis. The algorithms should have two main
characteristics:
1. They should be non trivial to compute, and often not part of
programming language standard libraries.
2. They should be fast enough that it is a good idea to have optimized C
implementations.
Next thing I would love to see? A small strings compression algorithm.
When deffered reply is added the previous reply node cannot be used so
all the extra space we allocated in it is wasted. in case someone uses
deffered replies in a loop, each time adding a small reply, each of
these reply nodes (the small string reply) would have consumed a 16k
block.
now when we add anther diferred reply node, we trim the unused portion
of the previous reply block.
see #7123
When deffered reply is added the previous reply node cannot be used so
all the extra space we allocated in it is wasted. in case someone uses
deffered replies in a loop, each time adding a small reply, each of
these reply nodes (the small string reply) would have consumed a 16k
block.
now when we add anther diferred reply node, we trim the unused portion
of the previous reply block.
see #7123
