- 28 10月, 2013 6 次提交
-
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
Sorting the output helps when we want to turn a non-deterministic into a deterministic command, in that case this is not possible.
-
由 antirez 提交于
The new implementation is capable of iterating the keyspace but also sets, hashes, and sorted sets, and can be used to implement SSCAN, ZSCAN and HSCAN.
-
- 25 10月, 2013 15 次提交
-
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 Pieter Noordhuis 提交于
The irrelevant bits shouldn't be masked to 1. This can result in slots being skipped when the hash table is resized between calls to the iterator.
-
由 Pieter Noordhuis 提交于
-
由 Pieter Noordhuis 提交于
-
- 11 10月, 2013 2 次提交
- 09 10月, 2013 5 次提交
-
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
After the change in clusterCron() frequency of call, we still want to ping just one random node every second.
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
All the internal state of cluster involving time is now using mstime_t and mstime() in order to use milliseconds resolution. Also the clusterCron() function is called with a 10 hz frequency instead of 1 hz. The cluster node_timeout must be also configured in milliseconds by the user in redis.conf.
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
- 08 10月, 2013 2 次提交
-
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
When a slave requests our vote, the configEpoch he claims for its master and the set of served slots must be greater or equal to the configEpoch of the nodes serving these slots in the current configuraiton of the master granting its vote. In other terms, masters don't vote for slaves having a stale configuration for the slots they want to serve.
-
- 07 10月, 2013 3 次提交
- 04 10月, 2013 7 次提交
-
-
由 antirez 提交于
Sometimes when we resurrect a cached master after a successful partial resynchronization attempt, there is pending data in the output buffers of the client structure representing the master (likely REPLCONF ACK commands). If we don't reinstall the write handler, it will never be installed again by addReply*() family functions as they'll assume that if there is already data pending, the write handler is already installed. This bug caused some slaves after a successful partial sync to never send REPLCONF ACK, and continuously being detected as timing out by the master, with a disconnection / reconnection loop.
-
由 antirez 提交于
Sometimes when we resurrect a cached master after a successful partial resynchronization attempt, there is pending data in the output buffers of the client structure representing the master (likely REPLCONF ACK commands). If we don't reinstall the write handler, it will never be installed again by addReply*() family functions as they'll assume that if there is already data pending, the write handler is already installed. This bug caused some slaves after a successful partial sync to never send REPLCONF ACK, and continuously being detected as timing out by the master, with a disconnection / reconnection loop.
-
由 antirez 提交于
Since we started sending REPLCONF ACK from slaves to masters, the lastinteraction field of the client structure is always refreshed as soon as there is room in the socket output buffer, so masters in timeout are detected with too much delay (the socket buffer takes a lot of time to be filled by small REPLCONF ACK <number> entries). This commit only counts data received as interactions with a master, solving the issue.
-
由 antirez 提交于
Since we started sending REPLCONF ACK from slaves to masters, the lastinteraction field of the client structure is always refreshed as soon as there is room in the socket output buffer, so masters in timeout are detected with too much delay (the socket buffer takes a lot of time to be filled by small REPLCONF ACK <number> entries). This commit only counts data received as interactions with a master, solving the issue.
-
由 antirez 提交于
There was a bug that over-esteemed the amount of backlog available, however this could only happen when a slave was asking for an offset that was in the "future" compared to the master replication backlog. Now this case is handled well and logged as an incident in the master log file.
-
由 antirez 提交于
-
由 antirez 提交于
There was a bug that over-esteemed the amount of backlog available, however this could only happen when a slave was asking for an offset that was in the "future" compared to the master replication backlog. Now this case is handled well and logged as an incident in the master log file.
-