1. 06 8月, 2015 3 次提交
    • A
      startBgsaveForReplication(): log what you really do. · ce5761e0
      antirez 提交于
      ce5761e0
    • A
      Client structure comments improved. · fd08839a
      antirez 提交于
      fd08839a
    • A
      Replication: add REPLCONF CAPA EOF support. · 3e6d4d59
      antirez 提交于
      Add the concept of slaves capabilities to Redis, the slave now presents
      to the Redis master with a set of capabilities in the form:
      
          REPLCONF capa SOMECAPA capa OTHERCAPA ...
      
      This has the effect of setting slave->slave_capa with the corresponding
      SLAVE_CAPA macros that the master can test later to understand if it
      the slave will understand certain formats and protocols of the
      replication process. This makes it much simpler to introduce new
      replication capabilities in the future in a way that don't break old
      slaves or masters.
      
      This patch was designed and implemented together with Oran Agra
      (@oranagra).
      3e6d4d59
  2. 05 8月, 2015 6 次提交
  3. 04 8月, 2015 1 次提交
    • A
      PSYNC initial offset fix. · 292fec05
      antirez 提交于
      This commit attempts to fix a bug involving PSYNC and diskless
      replication (currently experimental) found by Yuval Inbar from Redis Labs
      and that was later found to have even more far reaching effects (the bug also
      exists when diskstore is off).
      
      The gist of the bug is that, a Redis master replies with +FULLRESYNC to
      a PSYNC attempt that fails and requires a full resynchronization.
      However, the baseline offset sent along with FULLRESYNC was always the
      current master replication offset. This is not ok, because there are
      many reasosn that may delay the RDB file creation. And... guess what,
      the master offset we communicate must be the one of the time the RDB
      was created. So for example:
      
      1) When the BGSAVE for replication is delayed since there is one
         already but is not good for replication.
      2) When the BGSAVE is not needed as we attach one currently ongoing.
      3) When because of diskless replication the BGSAVE is delayed.
      
      In all the above cases the PSYNC reply is wrong and the slave may
      reconnect later claiming to need a wrong offset: this may cause
      data curruption later.
      292fec05
  4. 29 7月, 2015 2 次提交
  5. 28 7月, 2015 8 次提交
  6. 27 7月, 2015 4 次提交
  7. 26 7月, 2015 5 次提交
  8. 25 7月, 2015 4 次提交
  9. 24 7月, 2015 1 次提交
  10. 23 7月, 2015 1 次提交
    • A
      SDS: use type 8 if we are likely to append to the string. · ea9bd243
      antirez 提交于
      When empty strings are created, or when sdsMakeRoomFor() is called, we
      are likely into an appending pattern. Use at least type 8 SDS strings
      since TYPE 5 does not remember the free allocation size and requires to
      call sdsMakeRoomFor() at every new piece appended.
      ea9bd243
  11. 20 7月, 2015 1 次提交
  12. 17 7月, 2015 2 次提交
  13. 16 7月, 2015 2 次提交
    • A
      Client timeout handling improved. · 25e1cb3f
      antirez 提交于
      The previos attempt to process each client at least once every ten
      seconds was not a good idea, because:
      
      1. Usually because of the past min iterations set to 50, you get much
      better processing period most of the times.
      
      2. However when there are many clients and a normal setting for
      server.hz, the edge case is triggered, and waiting 10 seconds for a
      BLPOP that asked for 1 second is not ok.
      
      3. Moreover, because of the high min-itereations limit of 50, when HZ
      was set to an high value, the actual behavior was to process a lot of
      clients per second.
      
      Also the function checking for timeouts called gettimeofday() at each
      iteration which can be costly.
      
      The new implementation will try to process each client once per second,
      gets the current time as argument, and does not attempt to process more
      than 5 clients per iteration if not needed.
      
      So now:
      
      1. The CPU usage of an idle Redis process is the same or better.
      2. The CPU usage of a busy Redis process is the same or better.
      3. However a non trivial amount of work may be performed per iteration
      when there are many many clients. In this particular case the user may
      want to raise the "HZ" value if needed.
      
      Btw with 4000 clients it was still not possible to noticy any actual
      latency created by processing 400 clients per second, since the work
      performed for each client is pretty small.
      25e1cb3f
    • J
      92c146df