- 13 Jan, 2014 1 commit
-
-
antirez authored
-
- 09 Jan, 2014 2 commits
- 08 Jan, 2014 4 commits
-
-
antirez authored
Fixes issue #1491 on Github.
-
antirez authored
-
antirez authored
Masters not understanding REPLCONF ACK will reply with errors to our requests causing a number of possible issues. This commit detects a global replication offest set to -1 at the end of the replication, and marks the client representing the master with the REDIS_PRE_PSYNC flag. Note that this flag was called REDIS_PRE_PSYNC_SLAVE but now it is just REDIS_PRE_PSYNC as it is used for both slaves and masters starting with this commit. This commit fixes issue #1488.
-
antirez authored
-
- 25 Dec, 2013 5 commits
-
-
antirez authored
-
antirez authored
-
antirez authored
Durign a refactoring I mispelled _port for port. This is one of the reasons I never used _varname myself.
-
antirez authored
-
antirez authored
Now the socket is closed if anetNonBlock() fails, and in general the code structure makes it harder to introduce this kind of bugs in the future. Reference: pull request #1059.
-
- 23 Dec, 2013 2 commits
-
-
antirez authored
There were two problems with the implementation. 1) "save" was not correctly processed when no save point was configured, as reported in issue #1416. 2) The way the code checked if an option existed in the "processed" dictionary was wrong, as we add the element with as a key associated with a NULL value, so dictFetchValue() can't be used to check for existance, but dictFind() must be used, that returns NULL only if the entry does not exist at all.
-
antirez authored
This was no longer the case with 2.8 becuase of a bug introduced with the IPv6 support. Now it is fixed. This fixes issue #1287 and #1477.
-
- 22 Dec, 2013 2 commits
-
-
antirez authored
Currently replication offsets could be used into a limited way in order to understand, out of a set of slaves, what is the one with the most updated data. For example this comparison is possible of N slaves were replicating all with the same master. However the replication offset was not transferred from master to slaves (that are later promoted as masters) in any way, so for instance if there were three instances A, B, C, with A master and B and C replication from A, the following could happen: C disconnects from A. B is turned into master. A is switched to master of B. B receives some write. In this context there was no way to compare the offset of A and C, because B would use its own local master replication offset as replication offset to initialize the replication with A. With this commit what happens is that when B is turned into master it inherits the replication offset from A, making A and C comparable. In the above case assuming no inconsistencies are created during the disconnection and failover process, A will show to have a replication offset greater than C. Note that this does not mean offsets are always comparable to understand what is, in a set of instances, since in more complex examples the replica with the higher replication offset could be partitioned away when picking the instance to elect as new master. However this in general improves the ability of a system to try to pick a good replica to promote to master.
-
antirez authored
-
- 20 Dec, 2013 1 commit
-
-
antirez authored
-
- 19 Dec, 2013 6 commits
-
-
antirez authored
-
antirez authored
CONFIG REWRITE is now wiser and does not touch what it does not understand inside redis.conf.
-
Yubao Liu authored
Those options will be thrown without this patch: include, rename-command, min-slaves-to-write, min-slaves-max-lag, appendfilename.
-
antirez authored
-
antirez authored
With this commit options not explicitly rewritten by CONFIG REWRITE are not touched at all. These include new options that may not have support for REWRITE, and other special cases like rename-command and include.
-
antirez authored
-
- 13 Dec, 2013 4 commits
-
-
antirez authored
-
antirez authored
The bug could be easily triggered by: SADD foo a b c 1 2 3 4 5 6 SDIFF foo foo When the key was the same in two sets, an unsafe iterator was used to check existence of elements in the same set we were iterating. Usually this would just result into a wrong output, however with the dict.c API misuse protection we have in place, the result was actually an assertion failed that was triggered by the CI test, while creating random datasets for the "MASTER and SLAVE consistency" test.
-
antirez authored
-
- 12 Dec, 2013 3 commits
- 11 Dec, 2013 4 commits
-
-
antirez authored
-
antirez authored
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.
-
Yossi Gottlieb authored
-
Yossi Gottlieb authored
-
- 10 Dec, 2013 6 commits
-
-
antirez authored
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.
-
antirez authored
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).
-
antirez authored
-
antirez authored
-
antirez authored
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).
-
antirez authored
-