Is it possible for a Redis master instance to initiate a connection for replication to a slave?
What i need is for the master to MASTEROF to the slave instead of a SLAVEOF.
Use case: Redis Master on private network ip address and I want to create a replica on a server on an externally/publicly accessible ip address. Useful when slaves cannot see the master which is on a private 192.168.x.x ip address.
I'm afraid not. Since Redis allows replication from a single master to many slaves, the command you're looking for wouldn't make a lot of sense.
For your situation, you might consider one of several options:
Change your network setup so that the Redis master is publicly visible.
Add a slave which has a public address, but which is still within your network (i.e., so it can still see the master). Then, set up your public slave to replicate from that.
Use SSH to create a tunnel from your slave to your master and forward the appropriate ports along (i.e., use the -L and -N options). By adding the public key from your slave machine to your master machine's ~/.ssh/authenticated_keys file, you won't have to use a password to log in.
Related
Is it possible to build one master (port 6378) + two slave (read only port: 6379, 6380) "cluster" on one machine and increase the performances (especially reading) and do not use any proxy? Can the site or code connect to master instance and read data from read-only nodes? Or if I use 3 instances of Redis I have to use proxy anyway?
Edit: Seems like slave nodes don't have any data, they try to redirect to master instance, but it is not correct way, am I right?
Definitely. You can code the paths in your app so writes and reads go to different servers. Depending on the programming language that you're using and the Redis client, this may be easier or harder to achieve.
Edit: that said, I'm unsure how you're running a cluster with a single master - the minimum should be 3.
You need to send a READONLY command after connecting to the slave before you could execute any read commands.
A READONLY command only affects during the current socket session which means you need this command for every TCP connection.
I'm testing out ElastiCache backed by Redis with the following specs:
Using Redis 2.8, with Multi-AZ
Single replication group
1 master node in us-east-1b, 1 slave node in us-east-1c, 1 slave node in us-east-1d
The part of the application writing is directly using the endpoint for the master node (primary-node.use1.cache.amazonaws.com)
The part of the application doing only reads is pointing to a custom endpoint (readonly.redis.mydomain.com) configured in HAProxy, which then points to the two other read slave end points. (readslave1.use1.cache.amazonaws.com and readslave2.use1.cache.amazonaws.com)
Now lets say the primary node (master) fails in us-east-1b.
From what I understand, if the master instance fails, I won't have to change the url for the end point for writing to Redis (primary-node.use1.cache.amazonaws.com), although from there, I still have the following questions:
Do I have to change the endpoint names for the read only slaves?
How long until the missing slave is added into the pool?
If there's anything else I'm missing, I'd appreciate the advice/information.
Thanks!
If you are using ElastiCache, you should make use the "Primary EndpointThe" provided by AWS.
That endpoint actually is backed by Route53, if the primary (master) redis is down, since you enable MutliA-Z, it will auto fail over to one of the read replica (slave).
In that case, you don't need to modify the endpoint of your redis.
I don't know why you have such design, seems you only want write to master, but always read from slave.
For HA Proxy part, you should include TCP check for ALL 3 redis nodes, using their "Read Endpoint"
In haproxy, you can check if the endpoint is SLAVE, if yes, your haproxy should redirect the traffic to that.
Notice that in the application layer, if your redis driver don't support auto reconnect, your script will fail to connect to the new master nodes.
In addition to "auto reconnect", since AWS is using Route53 DNS to do fail over, some lib will NOT do NS lookup again, which means the DNS is still pointing to the OLD ip which is the old master.
Using HAproxy can solve this problem.
currently I have a redis instance, now I would make it more failure prove.
Is it possible to archive the following things?
I connect to redis with the service stack library, now I want that when the server is not available redis switch to the failover server automatically.
You should configure a Redis instance as a slave of your master instance, either using the slaveof command or more likely by adding a slaveof directive in the configuration file (something like 'slaveof 127.0.0.1 6380' ; look at the documentation for more info); then use Redis Sentinel to monitor the instances and promote the Slave as Master when the master fails.
Moreover you either have to use a Redis client that supports sentinel and handles the redirection when the slave is promoted to slave, or use a network configuration (like virtual IP) to make the redirection transparent for your application.
According to the git commit messages, ServiceStack has recently added failover support. I initially assumed this meant that I could pull one of my Redis instances down, and my pooled client manager would handle the failover elegantly and try to connect with one of my alternate Redis instances. Unfortunately, my code just bugs out and says that it can't connect with the initial Redis instance.
I am currently running instances of Redis 2.6.12 on a Windows, with the master at port 6379 and a slave at 6380, with sentinels set up to automatically promote the slave to a master if the master goes down. I am currently instantiating my client manager like this:
PooledRedisClientManager pooledClientManager =
new PooledRedisClientManager(new string[1] { "localhost:6379"},
new string[1] {"localhost:6380"});
where the first array is read-write hosts (for the master), and the second array is read-only hosts (for the slave).
When I terminate the master at port 6379, the sentinels promote the slave to a master. Now, when I try to run my C# code, instead of failing over to port 6380, it simply breaks and returns the error "could not connect to redis Instance at localhost:6379".
Is there a way around this, or will failover simply not work the way I want it to?
PooledRedisClientManager.FailoverTo allows you to reset which are the read/write hosts, vs readonly hosts, and restart the factory. This allows for a quick transition without needing to recreate clients.
Does REDIS has built-in mechanism that will use slave when master is down?
Can I use virtual IP to direct to master and when Master is down is it possible to direct to slave?
As per the documentaion:
elect the slave to master using the SLAVEOF NO ONE command, and shut down your master.
But how the application will know about the changed IP?
mysql has a third party utility that is called MMM (master master replication with monitor). Is there such an utility for REDIS?
You can use a virtual IP in a load balancer, though this is not built in to Redis. Any quality hardware or software load balancer should be able to do it. For example you can use "balance" or HAProxy to front the VIP and use a script or rules that checks the status of Redis instances to see which is master and sets that as the destination in the load balancer (LB).
Going this route would require one or more additional servers (or VMs depending on your setup) but it would provide you with a configuration that has clients talking to a single IP and being clueless about which server they need to talk to on the back end. How you update the LB with which server to talk to is dependent on what LB you use. Fortunately, none of them would need to know or handle the Redis protocol; they are just balancing a port.
When I go this route I go with a Slave-VIP and a Master-VIP. The slave-VIP load balances across all Redis instances, whereas the Master-VIP only has the current master enabled. If your write load is very heavy you can leave the current master out of the Slave-VIP pool. Otherwise I would leave it in; that eliminates the need for failover updating of the Slave-VIP pool.