Distributed locks with Redis--官方
原文：http://redis.io/topics/distlock
Distributed locks with Redis
Distributed locks are a very useful primitive in many environments where different processes require to operate with shared resources in a mutually exclusive way.
There are a number of libraries and blog posts describing how to implement a DLM (Distributed Lock Manager) with Redis, but every library uses a different approach, and many use a simple approach with lower guarantees compared to what can be achieved with slightly more complex designs.
This page is an attempt to provide a more canonical algorithm to implement distributed locks with Redis. We propose an algorithm, called?Redlock, which implements a DLM which we believe to be safer than the vanilla single instance approach. We hope that the community will analyze it, provide feedback, and use it as a starting point for the implementations or more complex or alternative designs.
Implementations
Before to describe the algorithm, here there are a few links at implementations already available, that can be used as a reference.
- Redlock-rb?(Ruby implementation).
- Redlock-py?(Python implementation).
- Redlock-php?(PHP implementation).
- Redsync.go?(Go implementation).
- Redisson?(Java implementation).
- Redis::DistLock?(Perl implementation).
- Redlock-cpp?(Cpp implementation).
- Redlock-cs?(C#/.NET implementation).
Safety and Liveness guarantees
We are going to model our design with just three properties, that are from our point of view the minimum guarantees needed to use distributed locks in an effective way.
Why failover based implementations are not enough
To understand what we want to improve, let’s analyze the current state of affairs with most Redis-based distributed locks libraries.
The simple way to use Redis to lock a resource is to create a key into an instance. The key is usually created with a limited time to live, using Redis expires feature, so that eventually it gets released one way or the other (property 2 in our list). When the client needs to release the resource, it deletes the key.
Superficially this works well, but there is a problem: this is a single point of failure in our architecture. What happens if the Redis master goes down? Well, let’s add a slave! And use it if the master is unavailable. This is unfortunately not viable. By doing so we can’t implement our safety property of the mutual exclusion, because Redis replication is asynchronous.
This is an obvious race condition with this model:
Sometimes it is perfectly fine that under special circumstances, like during a failure, multiple clients can hold the lock at the same time. If this is the case, you can use your replication based solution. Otherwise we suggest to implement the solution described in this document.
Correct implementation with a single instance
Before to try to overcome the limitation of the single instance setup described above, let’s check how to do it correctly in this simple case, since this is actually a viable solution in applications where a race condition from time to time is acceptable, and because locking into a single instance is the foundation we’ll use for the distributed algorithm described here.
To acquire the lock, the way to go is the following:
SET resource_name my_random_value NX PX 30000The command will set the key only if it does not already exist (NX option), with an expire of 30000 milliseconds (PX option). The key is set to a value “myrandomvalue”. This value requires to be unique across all the clients and all the locks requests.
Basically the random value is used in order to release the lock in a safe way, with a script that tells Redis: remove the key only if exists and the value stored at the key is exactly the one I expect to be. This is accomplished by the following Lua script:
if redis.call("get",KEYS[1]) == ARGV[1] thenreturn redis.call("del",KEYS[1]) elsereturn 0 endThis is important in order to avoid removing a lock that was created by another client. For example a client may acquire the lock, get blocked into some operation for longer than the lock validity time (the time at which the key will expire), and later remove the lock, that was already acquired by some other client. Using just DEL is not safe as a client may remove the lock of another client. With the above script instead every lock is “signed” with a random string, so the lock will be removed only if it is still the one that was set by the client trying to remove it.
What this random string should be? I assume it’s 20 bytes from /dev/urandom, but you can find cheaper ways to make it unique enough for your tasks. For example a safe pick is to seed RC4 with /dev/urandom, and generate a pseudo random stream from that. A simpler solution is to use a combination of unix time with microseconds resolution, concatenating it with a client ID, it is not as safe, but probably up to the task in most environments.
The time we use as the key time to live, is called the “lock validity time”. It is both the auto release time, and the time the client has in order to perform the operation required before another client may be able to acquire the lock again, without technically violating the mutual exclusion guarantee, which is only limited to a given window of time from the moment the lock is acquired.
So now we have a good way to acquire and release the lock. The system, reasoning about a non-distributed system which is composed of a single instance, always available, is safe. Let’s extend the concept to a distributed system where we don’t have such guarantees.
The Redlock algorithm
In the distributed version of the algorithm we assume to have N Redis masters. Those nodes are totally independent, so we don’t use replication or any other implicit coordination system. We already described how to acquire and release the lock safely in a single instance. We give for granted that the algorithm will use this method to acquire and release the lock in a single instance. In our examples we set N=5, which is a reasonable value, so we need to run 5 Redis masters in different computers or virtual machines in order to ensure that they’ll fail in a mostly independent way.
In order to acquire the lock, the client performs the following operations:
Is the algorithm asynchronous?
The algorithm relies on the assumption that while there is no synchronized clock across the processes, still the local time in every process flows approximately at the same rate, with an error which is small compared to the auto-release time of the lock. This assumption closely resembles a real-world computer: every computer has a local clock and we can usually rely on different computers to have a clock drift which is small.
At this point we need to better specify our mutual exclusion rule: it is guaranteed only as long as the client holding the lock will terminate its work within the lock validity time (as obtained in step 3), minus some time (just a few milliseconds in order to compensate for clock drift between processes).
For more information about similar systems requiring a bound?clock drift, this paper is an interesting reference:?Leases: an efficient fault-tolerant mechanism for distributed file cache consistency.
Retry on failure
When a client is not able to acquire the lock, it should try again after a random delay in order to try to desynchronize multiple clients trying to acquire the lock, for the same resource, at the same time (this may result in a split brain condition where nobody wins). Also the faster a client will try to acquire the lock in the majority of Redis instances, the less window for a split brain condition (and the need for a retry), so ideally the client should try to send the SET commands to the N instances at the same time using multiplexing.
It is worth to stress how important is for the clients that failed to acquire the majority of locks, to release the (partially) acquired locks ASAP, so that there is no need to wait for keys expiry in order for the lock to be acquired again (however if a network partition happens and the client is no longer able to communicate with the Redis instances, there is to pay an availability penalty and wait for the expires).
Releasing the lock
Releasing the lock is simple and involves just to release the lock in all the instances, regardless of the fact the client believe it was able to successfully lock a given instance.
Safety arguments
Is the algorithm safe? We can try to understand what happens in different scenarios.
To start let’s assume that a client is able to acquire the lock in the majority of instances. All the instances will contain a key with the same time to live. However the key was set at different times, so the keys will also expire at different times. However if the first key was set at worst at time T1 (the time we sample before contacting the first server) and the last key was set at worst at time T2 (the time we obtained the reply from the last server), we are sure that the first key to expire in the set will exist for at least?MIN_VALIDITY=TTL-(T2-T1)-CLOCK_DRIFT. All the other keys will expire later, so we are sure that the keys will be simultaneously set for at least this time.
During the time the majority of keys are set, another client will not be able to acquire the lock, since N/2+1 SET NX operations can’t succeed if N/2+1 keys already exist. So if a lock was acquired, it is not possible to re-acquire it at the same time (violating the mutual exclusion property).
However we want to also make sure that multiple clients trying to acquire the lock at the same time can’t simultaneously succeed.
If a client locked the majority of instances using a time near, or greater, than the lock maximum validity time (the TTL we use for SET basically), it will consider the lock invalid and will unlock the instances, so we only need to consider the case where a client was able to lock the majority of instances in a time which is less than the validity time. In this case for the argument already expressed above, for?MIN_VALIDITY?no client should be able to re-acquire the lock. So multiple clients will be able to lock N/2+1 instances at the same time (with “time" being the end of Step 2) only when the time to lock the majority was greater than the TTL time, making the lock invalid.
Are you able to provide a formal proof of safety, point out to existing algorithms that are similar enough, or to find a bug? That would be very appreciated.
Liveness arguments
The system liveness is based on three main features:
However we pay an availability penalty equal to “TTL” time on network partitions, so if there are continuous partitions, we can pay this penalty indefinitely. This happens every time a client acquires a lock and gets partitioned away before being able to remove the lock.
Basically if there are infinite continuous network partitions, the system may become not available for an infinite amount of time.
Performance, crash-recovery and fsync
Many users using Redis as a lock server need high performance in terms of both latency to acquire and release a lock, and number of acquire / release operations that it is possible to perform per second. In order to meet this requirement, the strategy to talk with the N Redis servers to reduce latency is definitely multiplexing (or poor’s man multiplexing, which is, putting the socket in non-blocking mode, send all the commands, and read all the commands later, assuming that the RTT between the client and each instance is similar).
However there is another consideration to do about persistence if we want to target a crash-recovery system model.
Basically to see the problem here, let’s assume we configure Redis without persistence at all. A client acquires the lock in 3 of 5 instances. One of the instances where the client was able to acquire the lock is restarted, at this point there are again 3 instances that we can lock for the same resource, and another client can lock it again, violating the safety property of exclusivity of lock.
If we enable AOF persistence, things will improve quite a bit. For example we can upgrade a server by sending SHUTDOWN and restarting it. Because Redis expires are semantically implemented so that virtually the time still elapses when the server is off, all our requirements are fine. However everything is fine as long as it is a clean shutdown. What about a power outage? If Redis is configured, as by default, to fsync on disk every second, it is possible that after a restart our key is missing. In theory, if we want to guarantee the lock safety in the face of any kind of instance restart, we need to enable fsync=always in the persistence setting. This in turn will totally ruin performances to the same level of CP systems that are traditionally used to implement distributed locks in a safe way.
However things are better than what they look like at a first glance. Basically the algorithm safety is retained as long as when an instance restarts after a crash, it no longer participates to any?currently active?lock, so that the set of currently active locks when the instance restarts, were all obtained by locking instances other than the one which is rejoining the system.
To guarantee this we just need to make an instance, after a crash, unavailable for at least a bit more than the max?TTL?we use, which is, the time needed for all the keys about the locks that existed when the instance crashed, to become invalid and be automatically released.
Using?delayed restarts?it is basically possible to achieve safety even without any kind of Redis persistence available, however note that this may translate into an availability penalty. For example if a majority of instances crash, the system will become globally unavailable for?TTL?(here globally means that no resource at all will be lockable during this time).
Making the algorithm more reliable: Extending the lock
If the work performed by clients is composed of small steps, it is possible to use smaller lock validity times by default, and extend the algorithm implementing a lock extension mechanism. Basically the client, if in the middle of the computation while the lock validity is approaching a low value, may extend the lock by sending a Lua script to all the instances that extends the TTL of the key if the key exists and its value is still the random value the client assigned when the lock was acquired.
The client should only consider the lock re-acquired if it was able to extend the lock into the majority of instances, and within the validity time (basically the algorithm to use is very similar to the one used when acquiring the lock).
However this does not technically change the algorithm, so anyway the max number of locks reacquiring attempts should be limited, otherwise one of the liveness properties is violated.
Want to help?
If you are into distributed systems, it would be great to have your opinion / analysis. Also reference implementations in other languages could be great.
Thanks in advance!
轉載于:https://www.cnblogs.com/davidwang456/p/4304780.html
總結
以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的Distributed locks with Redis--官方的全部內容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。
- 上一篇： What Influences Meth
- 下一篇： spring Transaction M