Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF50EE55F for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:49:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 13314 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2013 07:49:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 13073 invoked by uid 500); 15 Mar 2013 07:48:59 -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 13048 invoked by uid 99); 15 Mar 2013 07:48:58 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:48:58 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [91.195.24.3] (HELO mail.open.bg) (91.195.24.3) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:48:51 +0000 Received: from [78.83.22.128] (port=58267 helo=dede) by mail.open.bg with esmtpsa (Cipher SSL3.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) id 1UGPNO-0004Mk-Fb by authid with login for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:48:30 +0200 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:48:27 +0200 From: svilen To: user@couchdb.apache.org Subject: Re: replicating docs with tons of conflicts Message-ID: <20130315094827.5ff38106@dede> In-Reply-To: References: <22B621D3-3481-4FFE-89D7-461B5D6A2050@gmail.com> <8F753B28-01AB-4DE4-AC9B-FAAFB7756E47@gmail.com> <370307C8-90BA-4E8E-81A6-0141A4EE5A6E@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.13; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org not really my domain, but one might play with something like unix "nice" - that is, process-priority - but u cannot guess when a process is to be suppresed and when not. unless u put lots of efforts into it.. measuring heart beats, responsiveness etc svil On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:36:56 -0500 Robert Newson wrote: > Runaway processes are the very devil but the problem is not specific > to CouchDB, there is no CouchDB mechanism for this just as there's no > bash/python/ruby/perl method to limit a while(true){} loop. > > Highly conflicted documents are painful to update and read. I can't do > anything about that today. > > B. > > On 14 March 2013 17:23, Stephen Bartell wrote: > > Robert, this only works if I don't need to keep those docs around > > anymore. In my case, I want to keep the docs. I don't want to > > keep the conflicts of the docs. Most importantly thought, even if I > > delete all the conflicts on all my docs, I still have the problem > > of _deleted_docs. What I've seen is that only a few docs with a > > few thousand _deleted_docs each will plug up Couch and render > > unusable. You can't get rid of it through natural means. > > > > This is what Riyad was bringing up and what Ive implemented. I > > have a program which replicates from the troubled database _changes > > with the query param style=main_only. This allows me to still have > > the revision tree of the troubled database, but without the > > _deleted_conflicts. I can then wipe out the troubled db, recreate > > it, and replicate the shiny clean data back into it. > > > > This is unnatural and requires custom code to make happen. I can > > live with it until a better solution comes around. > > > > What I'm really concerned about is how couchdb eats all my cpu. > > > > Is there any way to ration the resources that couchdb uses? Like > > tell it not to use more than 50% or something. I think that couch > > eating all the resources on a machine just because its reading > > loads of data is a bug. Is this a reasonable conclusion? > >