Configuration: three redis cluster partitions across three sets of one master and one slave.
When a Master goes down, Lettuce immediately detects the outage and begins retrying. However, Lettuce does not detect that the associated slave has promoted itself to master and continues to retry using the old master that is not reachable and eventually times out. Tried setting various topology refresh options to no avail.
Proposed solution: After the first retry fails (which is the second retry in a row to fail), rerun topology refresh (that was used to derive topology during initialization) using topology from any of the nodes provided (since they all have the same topology information). This will reestablish the connections to the now-current masters. Then retry the failed operation on the partition that previously failed.
Redis Cluster is limited in terms of configuration update propagation compared to Redis Sentinel. Redis Sentinel communicates updates via Pub/Sub while Redis Cluster leaves polling as the sole option.
Lettuce supports periodic and adaptive cluster topology refresh triggers. Periodic updates topology in a regular interval, adaptive refresh listens to disconnects and cluster redirections.
You can configure both through ClusterClientOptions.
Periodic and adaptive refreshes try to cover the most cases which are mostly guesswork compensating the lack of a proper configuration change propagation. There always are loopholes (see issue #672) in which Lettuce is faster than the actual topology change. This leaves Lettuce with an outdated topology view as the actual change happens somewhat later.
Related
I have a basic question about Redis connection parameters from CacheManager.NET perspective. In case when we have Redis cluster with a master and 2 slaves, and with quorum of sentinel processes, should we provide the IP:PORT combinations pointing to the sentinel processes OR the actual Redis server processes.
As suggested in https://seanmcgary.com/posts/how-to-build-a-fault-tolerant-redis-cluster-with-sentinel, it is advisable to ask the sentinel process about the actual master before making the connection. And probably that goes in line with Jedis which provides JedisSentinelPool to do the initial lookup.
Essentially what we want is that the load balancing on reads (via CacheManager.NET) and the writes should go to the current master node of the cluster.
CacheManager relies on StackExchange.Redis for the Redis implementation. Therefor, whatever this client library supports, CacheManager does, too.
Unfortunately, sentinel support is not implemented, there are issues on github for years regarding that
That being said, I did some testing with a Multi Master/Slave + Sentinel setup. Added all the non-sentinel nodes as endpoints to the Multiplexer configuration and it kinda works because the Redis Client knows how to handle multiple master/slave instances.
In the process of switching to another master, the client might throw exceptions that it cannot write to a readonly slave and such. CacheManager might retry those calls and after a short amount of time, when the leader election is done, the call should go through.
But this is not 100% stable and I would not put that in production, as "official" support is still missing...
Alternative to running with sentinels, you could run Redis in Cluster mode which should just work, or behind a proxy which deals with all that master/slave stuff.
Twemproxy is one alternative.
I still have to add support for Twemproxy to CacheManager, as many features are simply not available, like Lua scripting or get a list of servers or flush commands...
This will come in 1.0.2
Hope that helps.
When running a single instance redis, I can use "slave of" to create a (or as many I like) readonly replica of this one redis node.
When using redis cluster, I split my Data into Partitons (Masters) and can create a slave for each partition.
Is it possible to treat this cluster as a single instance and connect a "slave of" Slave to this cluster which will hold a replica of all Data in the cluster and not just the partition of the connected node?
If not possible with redis cluster, is this might a working solution when using sentinel?
Our current Problem:
We are using the "slave of" feature together with keepalived to failover our redis instance on an outage of the master.
But we have lots of "slave of" slaves connected to the virtual IP of the failover setup, to deliver cached data.
Now everytime the system fails over (for maintenance reasons e.g.) all connected slaves have a timout for up to 30 seconds, when they have to resync their data with the new master.
We allready played with all possible redis config parameters but can't get this syncing time to be shorter (e.g. by relying on the replication-backlog, which isn't available on the new master after the failover).
Anyone any ideas?
a very good doc here : http://redis.io/presentation/Redis_Cluster.pdf and here http://fr.slideshare.net/NoSQLmatters/no-sql-matters-bcn-2014 (slide #9) or better https://www.javacodegeeks.com/2015/09/redis-clustering.html
If you want "slave" in Redis cluster mode, you need use replication of all nodes.
Regards,
Well, I just read this article:
https://seanmcgary.com/posts/how-to-build-a-fault-tolerant-redis-cluster-with-sentinel
The author used a single master with Redis Cluster, with 2 slaves per master, instead of one, and he let Redis Sentinel take care of the election of a slave to a master when the master is down.
You could play with this setup to see if the election of Master occurs quickly. While it's happening, clients would be served by a slave and should experience no downtime.
I have a question. Suppose I am using a Redis cluster with 3 shards (with master and slave). I came to know that if a master and its slave fails at the same time Redis Cluster is not able to continue to operate. What happen after that.
Would Redis cluster delete all the other keys from other 2 nodes as well? (When it comes back)
Do we need to manually restart this cluster and can we somehow retain the other keys values (on other nodes)?
How will it behave if I use Azure Redis Cache?
Thanks In Advance
1. Would Redis cluster delete all the other keys from other 2 nodes as well? (When it comes back)
First of all only the operations are blocked not the cluster activity and nothing is done with the data so says the documentation
Redis Cluster failure detection is used to recognize when a master or slave node is no longer reachable by the majority of nodes and then respond by promoting a slave to the role of master. When slave promotion is not possible the cluster is put in an error state to stop receiving queries from clients.
Next regarding if the data gets deleted or not (Under Replication document)
In setups where Redis replication is used, it is strongly advised to have persistence turned on in the master
Which means that only if the persistence was turned off and the master server pair went down then you will loose the data. When the pair comes back up, you will not be able to recover the data. So keep Redis persistence turned on.
2. Do we need to manually restart this cluster and can we somehow retain the other keys values (on other nodes)?
I think the above answer covers it up.
3. How will it behave if I use Azure Redis Cache?
From Azure Redis Cache FAQ
High Availability/SLA: Azure Redis Cache guarantees that a Standard/Premium cache will be available at least 99.9% of the time. To learn more about our SLA, see Azure Redis Cache Pricing. The SLA only covers connectivity to the Cache endpoints. The SLA does not cover protection from data loss. We recommend using the Redis data persistence feature in the Premium tier to increase resiliency against data loss.
So it's kinda their headache
OR
Redis Cluster: If you want to create caches larger than 53 GB or want to shard data across multiple Redis nodes, you can use Redis clustering which is available in the Premium tier. Each node consists of a primary/replica cache pair for high availability. For more information, see How to configure clustering for a Premium Azure Redis Cache.
What is the rationale behind requiring at least 3 ActiveMQ instances and 3 ZooKeeper servers for running master/slave setup with replicated LevelDB storage? If the requirement is imposed by the usage of ZooKeeper which requires at least 3 servers, what is the rationale for ZooKeeper to require at least 3 servers to provide reliability?
Is it for guaranteeing consistency in cases of network partitions (by sacrificing availability on the smaller smaller partition) as in a 2-node primary backup configuration it is impossible distinguish between a failed peer or both nodes being in different network partitions?
Is it for providing tolerance against Byzantine failures where you need 2f+1 nodes to survive f faulty nodes (considering ONLY crash failures requires only f+1 nodes to survive f faults)?
Or is there any other reason?
Thanks!
Zookeeper requires at least 3 servers because of how it elects a new Activemq Master. Zookeeper requires a majority (n/2+1) to elect a new master. If it does not have that majority, no master will be selected and the system will fail. This is the same reason for why you use an odd number of Zookeepers servers. (EG. 3 servers gives you the same failure rate as 4 because of majority, can still only lose 1 server.)
For Activemq, the necessity of at least 3 servers is derived from how the messages are synced, and the fact that when a new master is elected, it requires atleast a quorum of nodes (N/2+1) to be able to identify the latest updates. ActiveMQ will sync messages with 1 slave, and then respond with an OK. It will then sync asynchronously with all other slaves. If a quorum is not present when a node fails, then Zookeeper has no way to distinguish which node is the most currently updated. This is what happens when you have only 2 nodes originally, so at least 3 is recommended.
From ActiveMQ site, under How it Works:
All messaging operations which require a sync to disk will wait for the update to be replicated to a quorum of the nodes before completing. So if you configure the store with replicas="3" then the quorum size is (3/2+1)=2. The master will store the update locally and wait for 1 other slave to store the update before reporting success. Another way to think about it is that store will do synchronous replication to a quorum of the replication nodes and asynchronous replication replication to any additional nodes.
When a new master is elected, you also need at least a quorum of nodes online to be able to find a node with the lastest updates. The node with the lastest updates will become the new master. Therefore, it's recommend that you run with at least 3 replica nodes so that you can take one down without suffering a service outage.
Starting with Redis 2.8,redis add a function named "Partial resynchronization".I read this official document,but i don't understand.who can help me?
It is about master-slave replication.
The normal behavior of a Redis slave (slave of command, or configuration) is to connect to the master, ask the master to accumulate master-slave traffic, request a complete dump on filesystem to the master, download this dump on the slave, load the dump, and finally play the accumulated traffic until the slave catches up with the master.
This mechanism is quite robust but not very efficient to cover transient connection drops between the slave and the master. If the master-slave link is down for a couple of seconds, the slave will request a full resynchronization (involving a dump, etc ...), even if only a few commands have been missed.
Starting with 2.8, Redis includes a partial replication mechanism so a slave can reconnect to the master, and if some conditions are met (like a transient connection drop), asks the master to resynchronize without having to dump the whole memory instance.
In order to support this feature, the master has to buffer and keep a backlog of commands, so they can be served to the slaves at any time if needed. If the slave is too late behind the master, the backlog may not contain anymore the required data. In that case, a normal full synchronization is done, as in previous versions.