We have 2 app/web servers running HA application, we need to setup redis with high availability/replication to support our app.
Considering the minimum sentinel setup requirement of 3 nodes.
We are planning to prepare the first app serve with redis master and 1 sentinel, the second app server will have the redis slave and 1 sentinel, we plan to add one additional server to hold the third sentinel node to achieve the 2 quorum sentinel setup.
Is this a valid setup ? what could be the risks ?
Thanks ,,,
Well it looks its not recommended to put the redis nodes on the app servers (where it is recommended to put the sentinel nodes there).
We ended with a setup for KeyDB (a fork from Redis) which claimed to be faster and support high availability/replication (and much more) to create two nodes within the app servers.
Of course We had to modify little in the client side to support some advance Lua scripts (There is some binary serialized data not getting replicated to the other node).
But after some effort, it worked ! as expected.
Hope this helps ...
Related
I'm trying to implement redis sentinel in which there are two seperate
environments where master and replica redis will be running. The two
enviroments i.e. Primary and Backup will communicate through internet. Each
environment will have 2 nodes and each node will have one pod which contains
redis+sentinel processes. The following architecture represents the same.
Let's consider a scenario, if Master Redis (Node 1) goes down then sentinel
will invoke fail-over process and make one of the replica as Master Redis.
In such case, suppose Node 3 replica becomes master redis. So far all works
as expected. Now when Node 1 becomes available then its redis will start as
Master, after sentinels communication redis will act as replica. Ideally,
redis should bind on 1.2.3.4:30001 but it is binding on private IP of node
i.e. 192.168.x.x.
My question is why this is happening and as per my understanding sentinel is
responsible for config rewrites and asking Node 1 redis to become replica
redis so how sentinel is taking private IP rather than public IP.
Hopefully, I have properly conveyed my problem to you. if you need any futher
information feel free to comment.
I'm planning to create a high available Redis Cluster. After reading many articles about building Redis cluster i'm confused. So what exactly are
the advantages of a Redis Sentinel Master1 Slave1 Slave2 Cluster? Is it more reliable as a Redis Multinode Sharded Cluster?
the advantages of a Redis Multinode Sharded Cluster? Is it more reliable as a Redis Sentinel Master1 Slave1 Slave2 Cluster?
Further questions to the Redis Sentinel Master1 Slave1 Slave2 Cluster:
when i have 1 Master and the two Slaves and traffic is getting higher and higher so this cluster will be to small how can i make the cluster bigger?
Further questions to the Redis Multinode Sharded Cluster:
why are there so many demos with running a cluster on a single instance but on different ports? That makes no sense to me.
when i have a cluster with 4 masters and 4 replicas, how can an application or a client be sure to write to the cluster? When Master1 and Slave1 are dying but my application is writing always to the IP of Master1 then it will not work anymore. Which solutions are out there to implement a sharded cluster well to make it available for applications to find it with a single ip and port? Keepalived? HAproxy?
when i juse for a 4 master setup with e.g. Keepalived - doesn't that cancel out the different masters?
furthermore i need to understand why the multinode cluster is only for solutions where more data will need to be written as memory is available. Why? For me a multi master setup sounds good to be scaleable.
is it right that the the sharded cluster setup does not support multikey operations when the cluster is not in caching mode?
I'm unsure if these two solutions are the only ones. Hopefully you guys can help me to understand the architectures of Redis. Sorry for so many questions.
I will try to answer some of your questions but first let me describe the different deployment options of Redis.
Redis has three basic deployments: single node, sentinel and cluster.
Single node - The basic solution where you run single process running Redis.
It is not scalable and not highly available.
Redis Sentinel - Deployment that consist of multiple nodes where one is elected as master and the rest are slaves.
It adds high availability since in case of master failure one of the slaves will be automatically promoted to master.
It is not scalable since the master node is the only node that can write data.
You can configure the clients to direct read requests to the slaves, which will take some of the load from the master. However, in this case slaves might return stale data since they replicate the master asynchronously.
Redis Cluster - Deployment that consist of at least 6 nodes (3 masters and 3 slaves). where data is sharded between the masters. It is highly available since in case of master failure, one of his slaves will automatically be promoted to master. It is scalable since you can add more nodes and reshard the data so that the new nodes will take some of the load.
So to answer your questions:
The advantages of Sentinel over Redis Cluster are:
Hardware - You can setup fully working Sentinel deployment with three nodes. Redis Cluster requires at least six nodes.
Simplicity - usually it is easier to maintain and configure.
The advantages of Redis Cluster over Sentinel is that it is scalable.
The decision between that two deployment should be based on your expected load.
If your write load can be managed with a single Redis master node, you can go with Sentinel deployment.
If one node cannot handle your expected load, you must go with Cluster deployment.
Redis Sentinel deployment is not scalable so making the cluster bigger will not improve your performance. The only exception is that adding slaves can improve your read performance (in case you direct read requests to the slaves).
Redis Cluster running on a single node with multiple ports is only for development and demo purposes. In production it is useless.
In Redis Cluster deployment clients should have network access to all nodes (and node only Master1). This is because data is sharded between the masters.
In case client try to write data to Master1 but Master2 is the owner of the data, Master1 will return a MOVE message to the client, guiding it to send the request to Master2.
You cannot have a single HAProxy in front of all Redis nodes.
Same answer as in 5, in the cluster deployment clients should have direct connection to all masters and slaves not through LB or Keepalived.
Not sure I totally understood your question but Redis Cluster is the only solution for Redis that is scalable.
Redis Cluster deployment support multikey operations only when all keys are in the same node. You can use "hash tags" to force multiple keys to be handled by the same master.
Some good links that can help you understand it better:
Description on the different Redis deployment options: https://blog.octo.com/en/what-redis-deployment-do-you-need
Detailed explanation on the architecture of Redis Cluster: https://blog.usejournal.com/first-step-to-redis-cluster-7712e1c31847
I am setting up a cluster of servers using vagrant and playing with Redis sentinel and HAProxy for Postgresql db connection (with pgpool). I was curious if it make sense to put haproxy and redis sentinel on each of my web server nodes and have them connect directly to those. The thought is that it can create a distributed connection to the DB and redis and reduce the single point of failure to having a single haproxy that they connect to and then split to different db nodes. I can also keep the database connect (via haproxy) and redis (via sentinel) encapsulated to the localhost. Does this make sense?
It only makes sense if you're trying to save up on resources/costs.
Please note that redis sentinel must have a finite list of sentinel instances, which doesn't fit the scenario of placing one per machine, as your maching count would probably scale/change.
Otherwise , it's always makes the most sense to put different infrastructure components ( especially those with clustering/HA nature, such as redis ) on different machines.
By mixing them all together, you usually end up with applications getting in the way of each other and stealing CPU from each-other once the load increases. You also risk designing your applications/scripts/flows to be location aware (i.e assume external resources are always local ) which is also not a really good practice.
I am planning on adding Redis to our application as a session and cache store. I have been looking at how to make Redis highly available on an on-premise hosted solution.
The standard approach appears to be to set up Redis as a 3 node replica and use Sentinel for the monitoring and automatic failover.
Redis 2.8 introduces Redis cluster. Does that mean it brings in automatic failover etc and we no longer need to use Sentinel?
No, Cluster and Failover are different scenarios. Also Cluster is in 3.0, not 2.8.
The standard (and minimum) setup for HA is a master and one slave (aka "a pod"), with a separate set of three nodes which run Sentinel and monitor the pod.
This is to ensure failover of the server. However, either your client library has to support using Sentinel to discover master and reconnect on failure, you implement it in your code, or you set up a TCP load balancer and a sentinel monitoring daemon to update your load balancer configuration when a failover occurs at which point the client code doesn't know or care about sentinel.
Cluster isn't there to provide HA, it is there for server-side sharding of data. For Cluster you're looking at 6-7 nodes minimum (3 master, 3 slave, 1 spare) as well as Cluster support in the client and restrictions about commands and Lua script which need to access multiple keys.
I've been reading about the use of Redis sentinel for failover. I plan to have 1 master + 1 slave, and turn the slave into a master if the master goes down for more than 1 minute. I know this is 100% possible with Sentinel.
However, I've seen documentation mention the use of multiple Sentinels. Let's assume this is not possible (ie. budget or technical constraints). I assume I can have this configuration:
1 Sentinel in Server A
Master in Server B
Slave in Server C
What's the benefit of having multiple sentinels as opposed to 1? My app can only connect to 1 sentinel at a time, and even if there were 2 sentinels, my app can't rotate or switch between either of them if one goes down w/o some complicated logic in my app layer.
This configuration is possible only if servers in different locations. In that case, it hasn't SPOF, because of very low chances that 2 servers failed at the same time. If Sentinel failed, you can quickly notice it and repair/start new with Ansible.
This configuration worked for me 2 years, HA and FO worked perfectly.