I have 3 replicated Redis instances running on 3 different machines: A, B and C.
I initially choose A as my master.
I also have 3 sentinels (1 on each machine) monitoring A.
In case A goes down, I want sentinels to choose a specific master to failover to (say B).
Is there a way to choose a specific master instead of leaving it to the election mechanism of the sentinels?
Since I couldn't find this question anywhere, I reckon it's not standard procedure so I'll explain the reason behind it:
My application is running on A, B and C behind a load balancer.
The master uses its local Redis db which is replicated to the other two slaves.
When A fails, the load balancer could choose B as master while Redis sentinels could elect C as Redis master.
As I just said, I need the instance to be local, so that's why I need to specify B as the Redis master.
There's a Redis configuration setting called 'slave-priority' that may help you out.
Reference:
http://download.redis.io/redis-stable/redis.conf
Related
In a 6 nodes Redis Cluster, with 3 master nodes and 3 slave nodes, if let's say a master will go down, the according slave will be promoted. When the old master comes back live will be a slave.
Is it possible to force it somehow from the redis config or otherwise, so that when it comes back live, the old master will be promoted as a master as it was at the beginning?
Thank you!
If the old master comes up with property:
slaveof no one
It will join the cluster as a master, but I don't think you would like to do it.
The 'old master' does not have the latest data, if you force it to become the master, there will be data loss.
I'm currently exploring Redis cluster. I've started 6 instances on 3 physical servers(3 master and 3 slaves) with persistence enabled.
I've noticed that when I kill one of the master instances then it's slave is promoted to master after some time. However, it remains as master even when I start the killed instance.
Since, Redis does asynchronous replication, therefore, I was thinking of a scenario where the master, immediately after flushing the data is killed i.e. it wasn't able to replicate that data.
Will this data get replicated to the new master(initially slave), once
the instance comes back up?
NO. If the master haven't replicate data to slave, the data will be lost. When the old master recovers, it will be become a slave of some other node based on some rules. Then the old master will replicate data from its new master.
I know I'm asking something very obvious about cluster failover.
I read on redis.io that, if any master cluster node fails it will affect to other master nodes until slave come to take in charge. In my structure, I'm not defining any slave and just working with 3 masters.
I'm thinking to modify the redis-trib.rb file, which will remove the defected server and will start the cluster with other 2 nodes. I'm confused about a couple of things,
1) Resharding
Could not possible until failed server goes live
2) Minimum 3 node limitation for create cluster
As per bit understanding, redis-trib.rb not allowing me to create cluster for two nodes
There might be some solution in code file :)
3) Automatic Way to Re-Create new structure with live nodes
As programmer point of view, I'm searching something automatic for my system. Something that trigger one command when Redis Cluster fails some tasks happens internally. like
Shutdown all other redis cluster servers
Remove nodes-[port].conf files from all cluster nodes folder
Start redis cluster servers
Run "redis-trib.rb create ip:port ip:port"
I'm just trying to minimize administration work :). Otherwise I need to implement some other algorithm "Data Consistency" here.
If any of you guys have any solution or idea, kindly share.
Thanks,
Sanjay Mohnani
In a cluster with only master nodes, if a node fails, data is lost. Therefore no resharding is possible, since it is not possible to migrate the data (hash slots) out of the failed node.
To keep the cluster working when a master fails, you need slave nodes (one per master). This way, when a master fails, its slave fails over (becomes the new master with the same copy of the data).
The redis-trib.rb script does not handle cluster creation with less than 3 masters, however in redis-cluster a cluster can be of any size (at least one node).
Therefore adding slave nodes can be considered an automatic solution to your problem.
I understand redis sentinel is a way of configuring HA (high availability) among multiple redis instances. As I see, there is one redis instance actively serving the client requests at any given time. There are two additional servers are on standby (waiting for a failure to happen, so one of them can be in action again).
Is it waste of resources?
Is there a better way of using full use of the resources available?
Is Redis clustering an alternative to Redis sentinel?
I already looked up redis documentation for sentinel and clustering, can somebody having experience explain please.
UPDATE
OK. In my real deployment scenario I have two servers dedicated for redis. I have another server my Jboss server is running. The application running in Jboss is configured to connect to redis master server(M).
Failover scenario
Ideally, I think when Master cache server fails (either Redis process goes down or machine failure) the application in Jboss needs to connect to Slave cache server. How would I configure the redis servers to achieve this?
+--------+ +--------+
| Master |---------| Slave |
| | | |
+--------+ +--------+
Configuration: quorum = 1
First, lets talk sentinel.
Sentinel manages the failover, it doesn't configure Redis for HA. It is an important distinction. Second, the diagram you posted is actually a bad setup - you don't want to run Sentinel on the same node as the Redis nodes it is managing. When you lose that host you lose both.
As to "Is it waste of resources?" it depends on your use case. You don't need three Redis nodes in that setup, you only need two. Three increases your redundancy, but is not required. If you need the added redundancy then it isn't a waste of resources. If you don't need redundancy then you just run a single Redis instance and call it good - as running more would be "wasted".
Another reason for running two slaves would be to split reads. Again, if you need it then it wouldn't be a waste.
As to "Is there a better way of using full use of the resources available?" we can't answer that as it is far too dependent on your specific scenario and code. That said if the amount of data to store is "small" and the command rate is not exceedingly high, then remember you don't need to dedicate a host to Redis.
Now for "Is Redis clustering an alternative to Redis sentinel?".
It really depends entirely on your use case. Redis Cluster is not an HA solution - it is a multiple writer/larger-than-ram solution. If your goal is just HA then it likely won't be suitable for you. Redis Cluster comes with limitations, particularly around multi-key operations, so it isn't necessarily a straightforward "just use cluster" operation.
If you think having three hosts running Redis (and three running sentinel) is wasteful, you'll likely hold Cluster to be even more so as it does require more resources.
The questions you've asked are probably too broad and opinion-based to survive as written. If you have a specific case/problem you are working out please update with that so we can provide specific assistance and information.
Update for specifics:
For proper failover management in your scenario I would go with 3 sentinels, one running on your JBoss server. If you have 3 JBoss nodes then go with one on each. I'd have a Redis pod (master+slave) on separate nodes, and let sentinel manage the failover.
From there it is a matter of wiring up JBoss/Jedis to use Sentinel for it's information and connection management. As I don't use those a quick search turns up that Jedis has the support for it, you just need to configure it correctly. Some examples I found are at Looking for an example of Jedis with Sentinel and https://github.com/xetorthio/jedis/issues/725 which talk about JedisSentinelPool being the route for using a pool.
When Sentinel executes a failover the clients will be disconnected and Jedis will (should?) handle the reconnection by asking the Sentinels who the current master is.
This is not direct answer to your question, but think, it's helpful information for Redis newbies, like me. Also this question appears as the first link in google when searching the "Redis cluster vs sentinel".
Redis Sentinel is the name of the Redis high availability solution...
It has nothing to do with Redis Cluster and is intended to be used by
people that don't need Redis Cluster, but simply a way to perform
automatic fail over when a master instance is not functioning
correctly.
Taken from the Redis Sentinel design draft 1.3
It's not obviuos when you are new to Redis and implementing failover solution. Official documentations about sentinel and clustering doens't compare to each other, so it's hard to choose the right way without reading tons of documentations.
The recommendation, everywhere, is to start with an odd number of instances, not using two or a multiple of two. That was corrected, but lets correct some other points.
First, to say that Sentinel provides failover without HA is false. When you have failover, you have HA with the additional benefit of application state being replicated. The distinction is that you can have HA in a system without replication (it's HA but it's not fault tolerant).
Second, running a sentinel on the same machine as its target redis instance is not a "bad setup": if you lose your sentinel, or your redis instance, or the whole machine, the results are the same. That's probably why every example of such configurations shows both running on the same machine.
Additional info to above answers
Redis Cluster
One main purpose of the Redis cluster is to equally/uniformly distribute
your data load by sharding
Redis Cluster does not use consistent hashing, but a different form of sharding where every key is conceptually part of what is called as hash slot
There are 16384 hash slots in Redis Cluster, Every node in a Redis Cluster is responsible for a subset of the hash slots, so, for example, you may have a cluster with 3 nodes,
where:
Node A contains hash slots from 0 to 5500,
Node B contains hash slots from 5501 to 11000,
Node C contains hash slots from 11001 to 16383
This allows us to add and remove nodes in the cluster easily. For example, if we want to add a new node D, we need to move some hash slot from nodes A, B, C to D
Redis cluster supports the master-slave structure, you can create slaves A1,B1, C2 along with master A, B, C when creating a cluster, so when master B goes down slave B1 gets promoted as master
You don't need additional failover handling when using Redis Cluster and you should definitely not point Sentinel instances at any of the Cluster nodes.
So in practical terms, what do you get with Redis Cluster?
1.The ability to automatically split your dataset among multiple nodes.
2.The ability to continue operations when a subset of the nodes are experiencing failures or are unable to communicate with the rest of the cluster.
Redis Sentinel
Redis supports multiple slaves replicating data from a master node.
This provides a backup for data in master node.
Redis Sentinel is a system designed to manage master and slave. It runs as separate program. The minimum number of sentinels required in an ideal system is 3. They communicate among themselves and make sure that the Master is alive, if not alive they will promote one of the slaves as master, so later when the dead node spins up it will be acting as a slave for the new master
Quorum is configurable. Basically it is the number of sentinels that need to agree as the master is down. N/2 +1 should agree. N is the number of nodes in the Pod (note this setup is called a pod and is not a cluster)
So in practical terms, what do you get with Redis Sentinel?
It will make sure that Master is always available (if master goes down, the slave will be promoted as master)
Reference :
https://fnordig.de/2015/06/01/redis-sentinel-and-redis-cluster/
https://redis.io/topics/cluster-tutorial
This is my understanding after banging my head throughout the documentation.
Sentinel is a kind of hot standby solution where the slaves are kept replicated and ready to be promoted at any time. However, it won't support any multi-node writes. Slaves can be configured for read operations. It's NOT true that Sentinel won't provide HA, it has all the features of a typical active-passive cluster ( though that's not the right term to use here ).
Redis cluster is more or less a distributed solution, working on top of shards. Each chunk of data is being distributed among masters and slaves nodes. A minimum replication factor of 2 ensures that you have two active shards available across master and slaves.
If you know the sharding in Mongo or Elasticsearch, it will be easy to catch up.
Redis can operate in partitioned cluster (with many masters and slaves of those masters) or a single instance mode (single master with replica slaves).
The link here says:
When using Redis in single instance mode, in which a single Redis server manages the entire unpartitioned database, Redis Sentinel is used to manage its availability
It also says:
A Redis cluster, in which data is partitioned among multiple primary instances, manages availability by itself and requires no extra components.
So HA can be ensured in the 2 mentioned scenarios. Hope this clears the doubts. Redis cluster and sentinels are not alternative to each other. They are just used to ensure HA in different cases of partitioned or non-partitioned master.
Redis Sentinel performs the failover promoting replicas when they see a master is down. You typically want an odd number of sentinel nodes. For the example of one master and one replica, 3 sentinels should be used so there can be a consensus on the decision. Ideally the 3rd sentinel is on a 3rd server so the decision is not skewed (depending on failure). Sentinel takes care of changing the master/replica config settings on your nodes so that promotion and syncing occurs in the correct order and you don’t overwrite data by bringing on an old failed master that now contains older data.
Once you have your sentinel nodes set up to perform failovers, you need to ensure you are pointing to the correct instance. See an example of HAProxy configuration for this. HAProxy performs health checks and will point to the new master if a failure occurs.
Clustering will allow you to scale horizontally and can help handle high loads. It does take a bit of work to set up and configure up front.
There is an open source fork of Redis, “KeyDB” that has eliminated the need for sentinel nodes with an active-replica option. This allows the replica node to accept reads and writes. When a failover occurs HAProxy stops reads/writes with the failed node and just uses the remaining active node which is already sync’d. Timestamping enables the failed nodes to rejoin automatically and resync without losing data when they come back online. Setup is simple and for higher traffic you don’t need special upfront setup to direct reads to the replica node and read/writes to the master. See example of active replication here. KeyDB is also multi-threaded which for some applications might be an alternative to clustering, but really depends on what your needs are.
There is also an example of setting up clustering manually and with the create-cluster tool. These are the same steps if you are using Redis (replace 'keydb' with 'redis' in instruction)
I'm new to ZooKeeper. This is what I need.
I've a network of peers.
At t=t_1 -> [peer-1 (Leader), peer-2]
peer-1 is the master and all clients connect to this node.
At t=t_2 -> [peer-1 (Leader), peer-2, peer-3]
At some later time peer-3 joins the group. Is it possible to add peer-3 to the list of zookeeper servers "dynamically" ( i.e., without restarting ZooKeeper on peer-1 ) ?
At t=t_3 -> [peer-3 (Leader), peer-4]
After a while both peer-1 and peer-2 leave the group (e.g., die or are switched off.) Assuming that there is a way to dynamically add peer-3 and peer-4 to the group peer-3 becomes the leader and all client requests are send to peer-3.
Are there any other options that I can use apart from using ZooKeeper to do something like this.
thanks.
At the moment, you can't dynamically change the configuration of a zookeeper cluster without restarting. There is an open issue to fix this, ZOOKEEPER-107. The paper describing the cluster membership algorithm is quite interesting, and can be found here.
You can change the configuration of the cluster by restarting server nodes 1 at a time. For example, if you cluster has servers A,B,C, and you want to replace server C with D, then you can do something like,
Bring down C
Bring up D, it's peer list is A,B,D
Take down B
Change B's peer list to A,B,D
Bring up B
Take down A Change A's peer list to A,B,D
Bring up A
Change the client configuration of all clients to point to A,B,D
At t=t_1, you have a cluster with 2 zookeeper nodes. This is quite brittle, as if either node goes down, you will not be able to establish quorum (floor(N / 2) + 1), and the cluster will be unavailable. Generally zookeeper clusters are odd numbers.
I'm not sure what you are trying to do when you say,
peer-3 becomes the leader and all client requests are send to peer-3.
You can't specify which node in a zookeeper cluster is the leader, the nodes themselves will elect their leader, and leadership will change as nodes go up and down. As well, clients typically don't always connect to the leader, but clients are given list of machines in the cluster, and connect randomly to one, reconnecting if the server they are connected to goes down. You can set the leaderServes option to specify that the leader does NOT server client connections.
I would not suggest using the above for any production situation.
The above solution only works if you are ok with losing ZK quorum for while until all changes are complete.
here's why:
Bring down C Bring up D, it's peer list is A,B,D"
-> at this point A and B dont know about D
-> D knows about A B
so at this point you have only A and B functioning in quorum
next you take down B and you lose quorum.
you will lose access to zk data, until migration is complete and quorum is restored again. Most well designed apps using zk in this case failover to a readonly mode and will gracefully recover.
Until Zookeeper-107 is released under Zookeeper 3.5, you will need to choose you poison wisely.
Its better to :
just setup a new zk ensemble (zk cluster)
restore from snapshot
mirate apps from old zk ensemble to new zk ensemble
After migration is complete shutdown old zk ensemble