Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 47937 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2010 19:44:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2010 19:44:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 30628 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2010 19:44:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 30599 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2010 19:44:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 30591 invoked by uid 99); 2 Apr 2010 19:44:42 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:44:42 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.2 required=10.0 tests=AWL,FREEMAIL_FROM,FS_REPLICA,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of randall.leeds@gmail.com designates 209.85.211.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.211.175] (HELO mail-yw0-f175.google.com) (209.85.211.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:44:36 +0000 Received: by ywh5 with SMTP id 5so1526032ywh.13 for ; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:44:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=f4un21YtagM+fNzXm/ckeg0POlDZFxEZfLaL+wfYcDM=; b=XYBbsXsdjOYxB2PjMYNlK3Jij5/Ytm6erRkFvTWsVgA56AN6c+7pQk/cZFE57F7MAa 8Uh3otbUu5ywkNPWYjWLNC4n310T2iI36wteFHWLx8xjzFsNXIFsHUuD3AAobjb3eYzz 8O6L/J0DJLXYoedDzJJLATQ0pMztwyflyci5g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=ouzcbPSATVkzjbvSmzCrzwMsI3cByRg6S/v7qtkjRp4aEb4z4xWRT2s/SePwxycj5x L6uKXq4PMckU6SPd3hkmLNFeRKipmaDYSnBCX+SCcLE9MdB49aC5zBB0MgmvBw/va21b NDSucQgAB/O9lMM73KOjuusttN9FbflAzpe+s= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.157.11 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.157.11 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:44:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4bb110d5.0a4d5e0a.38f2.ffffe225@mx.google.com> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:44:14 -0700 Received: by 10.150.243.12 with SMTP id q12mr3264739ybh.233.1270237455231; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: Test report on replication failures From: Randall Leeds To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd306f84cad0804834634ea --000e0cd306f84cad0804834634ea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Matt, can you repeat your test with 0.11 and report back on that jira ticket? On Mar 29, 2010 2:02 PM, "Randall Leeds" wrote: There was a known problem replicating large attachments on 0.10.1 which was fixed. There is still a remaining problem with replication crashes that I'm looking into. Progress is tracked here: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-597 On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 13:43, Matthew Sinclair-Day wrote: > Hi folks, > > I hav... --000e0cd306f84cad0804834634ea--