couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Santner <>
Subject Re: Best Choice for redundant production environment?
Date Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:06:37 GMT
Cool, thanks for the info Adam!   Do you or anyone know what would be the advantage of using
more than one port in the range?  Like if I have three nodes perhaps having two in the range
allows for quicker communication with the other two than forcing through one port? 

Only other thing that's a bit confusing do I restart bigcouch??  I'm rebooting for
now, but would like to know how to just restart bigcouch without doing a kill.


On Jul 25, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Adam Kocoloski <> wrote:

> Hi Dan, oops, sounds like the docs missed a port range there.  Each of your nodes is
listening for connections from the other nodes on a particular port.  That port is advertised
by EPMD on 4369.  You can control the range of ports that might be used in the vm.args file
-- the following directive placed in that file will force your nodes to listen on port 9100:
>> # Limit the allowable port range for distributed Erlang
>> -kernel inet_dist_listen_min 9100
>> -kernel inet_dist_listen_max 9100
> Regards, Adam
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Dan Santner <> wrote:
>> Thanks guys.  After a bit of wrangling I have bigcouch running!  Exciting stuff.
 However, does anyone know what ports I'm supposed to open for each node?  
>> The doc only mentions 5984,5986, and 4369 but clearly that wasn't enough.  Started
with those three and every PUT gave me a 500 even though it saved to the specific node, just
wouldn't propogate to the others..
>> So then I opened all the ports and it worked like a charm.  So clearly there are
more ports required than the three in the doc.  Is Erlang speaking over some others?
>> Sorry if this is the wrong forum.
>> Dan.
>> On Jul 17, 2013, at 2:22 PM, Robert Newson <> wrote:
>>> BigCouch provides redundancy and partitioning. By default, three
>>> copies of the data, and uses a quorum mechanism which is generally
>>> superior to three independent couchdb nodes inter-replicating.
>>> And, of course, the BigCouch project is merging with CouchDB.
>>> B.
>>> On 17 July 2013 19:59, Nick North <> wrote:
>>>> I run a production environment with three nodes several thousand miles
>>>> apart with full-mesh replication - it behaves beautifully, seamlessly
>>>> recovering from network outages, and I don't touch it for months on end.
>>>> particular setup is multi-master, so every node is a production one, and
>>>> clients swap to another node if their local one goes down. Document ids are
>>>> designed to be globally unique so that they can never clash between nodes,
>>>> and it happens that the app never needs to edit documents, so there is no
>>>> chance of multiple edits colliding.
>>>> Nick
>>>> On 17 July 2013 19:41, Dan Santner <> wrote:
>>>>> I'm about to put together my production environment using couchdb as
>>>>> backend.  I've been running my test environment on a single linux node
>>>>> (couchdb ver 1.2) for about a year without even restarting it once! 
>>>>> activity has actually been more than I can imagine in our production
>>>>> environment, however, I'm nervous about going into production running
>>>>> single node.
>>>>> question to you guys is this?  Do I look into running big couch,
>>>>> and does that even handle redundancy or just sharding?  Do I simply setup
>>>>> two nodes and let them cross replicate?  Cross replication just seems
>>>>> for problems, but I've never tried it so I'm asking you all what you'd
>>>>> My production traffic will not be high by any measure.  There will be
>>>>> bursts of activity but as mentioned, nothing a single node hasn't been
>>>>> to handle so far.
>>>>> Any experiences you guys have to share is appreciated.
>>>>> Dan.

View raw message