We have a setup with a number of redis (2.8) servers (lets say 4) and as many redis sentinels. On startup of each machine, we set a pre-select machine as master through the command line and all the rest as slaves of that. and the sentinels all monitor these machines. The clients first connect to the local sentinel and retrieve the master's IP address and then connect there.
This setup is trouble free most of the time but sometimes the sentinels go out of sync with servers. if I name the machines A,B,C and D - sentinels will think B is master while redis servers are all connected to A as the master. bringing down redis server on B doesnt help either. I had to bring it down and manually "Sentinel failover" on A to fix the issue. Question is
1. What causes this to happen and whats the easiest and quickest way to fix this ?
2. What is best configuration - is there something better than this ?
The only time you should set a master is the first time. Once sentinel has taken over management of replication you should let it do it. This includes on restarts. Don't use the command line to set replication. Let sentinel and redis manage it. This is why you're getting issues - you've told sentinel it is authoritative, but you are telling the Redis servers to ignore sentinel.
Sentinel stores the status in its Config file, so when it restarts it can resume the last configuration. So even on restart, let sentinel do it's job.
Also, if you have 4 servers (be specific, not "let's say") you should be running a quorum of three on your monitor statement in sentinel. With a quorum of two you can wind up with two masters
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.
Hello stack community,
I have a question about Redis sentinel for a specific problem case. I use AWS with Multi AZ to create a sensu cluster.
On eu-central-1a I have a sensu+redis(M), a RBMQ+Sentinel and 2 others Sentinels. Same on eu-central-1b but the redis is my slave on this AZ.
What happen if there is a problem and eu-central-1a can not communicate with eu-central-1b ? What I think is that Sentinel on eu-central-1b should promote my redis slave to master, because he can not contact my redis master. So I should have 2 redis masters running together on 2 different AZ.
But when the link is retrieved between AZ, I will still have 2 masters, with 2 different datas. What will happen in this case ? One master will become a slave and data will be replicated without loss ? Do we need to restart a master and he will be a slave ?
Sentinel detects changes to the master for example
If the master goes down and is unreachable a new slave is elected. This is based on the quorum where multiple sentinels agree that the master has gone down. The failover then occurs.
Once the sentinel detects the master come back online it is then a slave I believe thus the new master continues I believe. You will loose data in the switchover from master to new master that in inevitable.
If you loose connection then yes sentinel wont work correctly as it relies on multiple sentinels to agree the master redis is down. You shouldn't use sentinel in a 2 sentinel system.
Basic solution would be for you to put a extra sentinel on another server maybe the client/application server that isn't running redis/sentinel this way you can make use of the quorum and sentinels agreeing the master is down.
Suppose I have [Slave IP Address] which is the slave of [Master IP Address].
Now my master server has been shut down, and I need to set this slave to be master MANUALLY (WITHOUT using sentinel automatic failover, WITH redis command).
Is it possible doing this without restarting the redis service ? (and losing all the cached data)
use SLAVEOF NO ONE to promote a slave to master
http://redis.io/commands/slaveof
it depends, if you are in a cluster you will be better using the fail over. You will need to use the force option in the command
http://redis.io/commands/cluster-failover
Is it possible doing this without restarting the redis service? (and
losing all the cached data)
yes that's possible, you can use
SLAVEOF NO ONE (without sentinel)
But it is recommended to use sentinel to avoid data loss.
sentinel failover master-name(with sentinel)
This will force the sentinel to switch master.
The new master will have all the data that was synchronized before the old-master shutdown.
Redis will automatically choose the best slave with max. data, that will reduce the amount of data we lose when switching master.
Below 2 options in step 3 have helped me to recover the cluster once a master node is down, compute was replaced or other not recoverable state.
1 .- First you need to connect to the slave node, use redis-cli, here a link how to do that: How to connect to remote Redis server?
2 .- Once connected to the slave node run the command cluster nodes to validate master node is in fail state, also run cluster info to see the overall state of your cluster(this is always a good idea)
3 .- Inside the slave node to be promoted run command: cluster failover,
in rare cases when there is some serious issues with redis this
command could fail, and you will need to use cluster failover force
or cluster failover takeover, here more info abut the implications
of those options: https://redis.io/commands/cluster-failover
4 .- Run cluster forged $old_master_id in all your cluster nodes
5 .- Add a new node with cluster meet $new_node_IP $new_node_PORT
6 .- Subscribe your new node to your brand new master, login in to the new bode and run cluster replicate $master_node_id
Steps 1-3 are required for the slave-master promotion and 4-5 are required to left all cluster in a healthy master-slave equilibrium.
As of Redis version 5.0.0 the SLAVEOF command is regarded as deprecated.
If a Redis server is already acting as replica, the command REPLICAOF NO ONE will turn off the replication, turning the Redis server into a MASTER.
I've been doing some reading on how to use Redis Sentinel, and I know it's possible to have 2 or more sentinels, and load balance between them when calling from the client side.
Is it good practice to have these 2 sentinels in the same server as my master + slave? In other words, have 1 sentinel in the same physical server as master, and another in same physical server as slave?
It seems to me if the master server dies, the sentinel in the slave will simply promote the slave to a master. if the slave server dies, it doesn't matter because the master is still up.
Am I missing something? What are the downsides?
I rather have the sentinels be in the same physical server as the master/slave to reduce latency.
First, Sentinel is not a load balancer or a proxy for Redis.
Second, not all failures are death of the host. Sometimes the server hangs briefly, sometimes a network cable gets unplugged, etc. Because f this, it is not good practice to run Sentinel on the same hosts as your Redis instance. If you're using Sentinel to manage failover, anything less than three sentinels running on nodes other than your Redis master and slave(s) is asking for trouble.
Sentinel uses a quorum mechanism to vote on a failover and slave. With less than two sentinels you run the risk of split brain where two or more Redis servers think they are master.
Imagine the scenario where you run two servers and run sentinel on each. If you lose one you lose reliable failover capability.
Clients only connect to Sentinel to learn the current master connection information. Anytime the client loses connectivity they repeat this process. Sentinel is not a proxy for Redis - commands for Redis go directly to Redis.
The only reliable reason to run Sentinel with less than three sentinels is for service discovery, which means not using it for failover management.
Consider the two host scenario:
Host A: redis master + sentinel 1 (Quorum 1)
Host B: redis slave + sentinel 2 (Quorum 1)
If Host B temporarily loses network connectivity to Host A in this scenario HostB will promote itself to master. Now you have:
Host A: redis master + sentinel 1 (Quorum 1)
Host B: redis master + sentinel 2 (Quorum 1)
Any clients which connect to Sentinel 2 will be told Host B is the master, whereas clients which connect to Sentinel 1 will be told Host A the master (which, if you have your Sentinels behind a load balancer, means half of your clients).
Thus what you need to run to obtain minimum acceptable reliable failover management is:
Host A: Redis master
Host B: Redis Slave
Host C: Sentinel 1
Host D: Sentinel 2
Host E: Sentinel 2
Your clients connect to the sentinels and obtain the current master for the Redis instance (by name), then connect to it. If the master dies the connection should be dropped by the client whereupon the client will/should connect to Sentinel again and get the new information.
How well each client library handles this is dependent on the library.
Ideally Hosts C,D, and E are either on the same hosts where you connect to Redis from (ie. the client host). or represent a good sampling got them. The main thrust here is to ensure you are checking from where you need to connect to Redis from. Failing that place them in the same DC/Rack/Region as the clients.
If you are wanting to have your clients talk to a load balancer try to have your Sentinels on those LB nodes if possible, adding additional non-LB hosts as needed to obtain an odd number of sentinels > 2. An exception to this is if your client hosts are dynamic in that the number of them is inconsistent (they scale up for traffic, down for slow periods, for example). In this scenario you pretty much must run your Sentinels on non-client and non-redis-server hosts.
Note that if you do this you will then need to write a daemon which monitors the Sentinel PUBSUB channel for the master switch event to update the LB -which you must configure to only talk to the current master (never try to talk to both). It is more work to do that but does make use of Sentinel transparent to the client - which only knows to talk to the LB IP/Port.
It all depends the level of Disaster Recovery you want to achieve, let's assume you have the following components independently of where they are hosted:
2 Sentinels
1 Master
1 Slave
1 Master 1+ Slaves
One host scenario
Host fails: You loose everything, bad replication scenario for most use cases.
Two host scenario
Host 1:
(Current elected) Master
1 Sentinel
Host 2:
Slave
1 Sentinel
It is true that in this scenario you can have the hosts fail one at a time which gives you some level of security. Just try to understand if by different server you mean physically different hosts. If these are just VMs on the same host, you do not get the same level of DR (Disaster Recovery).
Regarding your question:
I rather have the sentinels be in the same server as the master/slave to reduce latency.
Notice that Sentinels keep track of the current master and slaves, but the Redis clients do not connect to the Master VIA the Sentinels, they just get where the current master is via the Sentinels, e.g., in terms of reads and writes you're not looking into any considerable* latency gains.
Configuration provider. Sentinel acts as a source of authority for clients service discovery: clients connect to Sentinels in order to ask for the address of the current Redis master responsible for a given service. If a failover occurs, Sentinels will report the new address.
(see: http://redis.io/topics/sentinel)
The way I see it the only gains you have in terms of latency are the heartbeats sent from the Master and Slaves to the sentinel. As long as you are not spreading your servers through the whole world that should be ok.
It all depends on the use cases, but it seems you would do best to keep things as separate as possible if all other things are equal (costs, distance to clients, etc).
You can have sentinels on the same machine with master/slave, but the sentinels must be odd(3/5/7) in number. There should be atleast three sentinels and it is must to have a dedicated machine for atleast one sentinel.
If you have only two nodes, then in case of a split-brain (network disrupt) situation, the slave will be promoted to master. Both the master now will accept data from clients.However, when things come back to normal, one of the master will be demoted as a slave. That master will lose all of its data as it is a slave now and will replicate the data from current master.
check this for good a explanation of redis architectural desings and split-brain:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170527053749/http://www.yzuzun.com/2015/04/some-architectural-design-concepts-for-redis/
It's certainly not a recommended approach.
The Redis Sentinel docs explains the tradeoffs pretty well. Hope this helps.
https://redis.io/topics/sentinel#example-sentinel-deployments
We have a redis cluster with a master and a slave managed by three sentinel processes, and an additional remote slave, hosted in a different datacenter, for transparent failover and data preservation in the case that something bad happens to the master and slave machines.
It may happen that a transient error takes down the master redis process only, and in this situation we would like to see the slave process promoted to master, and the remote slave reslaved to it. However, it seems that sentinel could just as easily promote the remote slave to master, and we have not found any way to prevent this.
Is there any way to mark a particular slave machine as unpromotable, so that sentinel will not try to make it the master in the event of a failover?
Yes. In the slave's config file set the slave-priority setting to zero (the number not the word).