couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul Joseph Davis (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (COUCHDB-1429) Server stops responding after heavy load against _list function
Date Fri, 11 May 2012 18:52:49 GMT


Paul Joseph Davis commented on COUCHDB-1429:

Looks like you need to increase the os_process_limit setting in the query_server_config section
of the config. Looks like you're just sending it too much work for the configured limits which
then causes timeouts as clients wait for a couchjs process to become available. Not seeing
why its stopped accepting connections though. I could imagine a few ways but i'd have to dig
further than I have time for right now.
> Server stops responding after heavy load against _list function
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: COUCHDB-1429
>                 URL:
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 1.1.1
>         Environment: Ubuntu 11.10 on AWS EC2 t1.micro instance, ~512MB memory and no
>            Reporter: Nathan Vander Wilt
> Under heavy load, CouchDB crashes and stops responding to all incoming requests.
> To reproduce this, basically:
> 1. build-couchdb (1.1.1) on an EC2 t1.micro running Ubuntu
> 2. Add the '42' file at the path is looking for (not sure the easiest way to
do this natively, I inserted a rule for it at the nginx level)
> 3. Run their default rush on a _list function (mine happened to do a fair amount of work,
> doing a Markdown conversion and Mustache templating)
> 4. Around about the 40 concurrent user mark in my case, CouchDB dies a terrible horrible
death with a
> bunch of zombie couchjs process.
> In this log (warning: large!) you'll see
the heavy requests being handled but suddenly crashing. The "restart" seen at the end was
due to manual intervention from the shell, CouchDB did not gracefully handle the issue.
> I later tried turning on some swap space in case memory was an issue, but didn't seem
to have an appreciable effect.
> May be related to the discussion here:

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


View raw message