couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <>
Subject Re: couchdb crashes silently
Date Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:00:49 GMT

We should really remove that init.d daemon script and replace it with runit. That way you
a) are guaranteed a restart on crash and b) stdout/err is automatically captured (and rotated).
In my experience the stdout/err in these events is very useful. To switch, you need runit
(obviously) and then a short stanza that starts couchdb in the foreground, there's a switch
for that. Alternatively, start in the foreground in a terminal (as the couchdb user) and pound
the server until it crashes.

I've no operational experience with R16 series, unfortunately. All I do know is, since R15,
the new process scheduler can interact poorly with NIF's that perform work lasting over a
millisecond, which I could imagine happening for JSON encoding/decoding of large documents.

If it were a running out of file descriptors or sockets situation, I would expect some useful
noise in the log, but we can't rule it out yet.


On 13 Sep 2013, at 23:20, James Marca <> wrote:

> I am seeing a lot of random, silent crashes on just *one* of my
> CouchDB servers.
> couchdb version 1.4.0 (gentoo ebuild)
> erlang also from gentoo ebuild: 
> Erlang (BEAM) emulator version 5.10.2
> Compiled on Fri Sep 13 08:39:20 2013
> Erlang R16B01 (erts-5.10.2) [source] [64-bit] [smp:8:8]
> [async-threads:10] [kernel-poll:false]
> I've got 3 servers running couchdb, A, B, C, and only B is crashing.
> All of them are replicating a single db between them, with B acting as
> the "hub"...A pushes to B, B pushes to both A and C, and C pushes to
> B.
> All three servers have data crunching jobs running that are reading
> and writing to the database that is being replicated around.
> The B server, the one in the middle that is push replicating to both A
> and C, is the one that is crashing.
> The log looks like this:
> [Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:43:28 GMT] [info] [<0.9164.2>] - - GET /carb%2Fgrid%2Fstate4k%2fhpms/95_232_2007-01-07%2000%3A00
> [Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:43:28 GMT] [info] [<0.9165.2>] - - GET /carb%2Fgrid%2Fstate4k%2fhpms/115_202_2007-01-07%2000%3A00
> [Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:48:23 GMT] [info] [<0.32.0>] Apache CouchDB has started on
> [Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:48:23 GMT] [info] [<0.138.0>] Attempting to start replication
`84213867ea04ca187d64dbf447660e52+continuous+create_target` (document `carb_grid_state4k_push_emma64`).
> [Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:48:23 GMT] [info] [<0.138.0>] Attempting to start replication
`e663b72fa13b3f250a9b7214012c3dee+continuous` (document `carb_grid_state5k_hpms_push_kitty`).
> no warning that the server died or why, and nothing in the
> /var/log/messages about anything untoward  happening (no OOM killer
> invoked or anything like that)
> The restart only happened because I manually did a 
> /etc/init.d/couchdb restart
> Usually couchdb restarts itself, but not with this crash.
> I flipped the log to debug level, and still had no warning about the crash:
> [Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:57:15 GMT] [debug] [<0.28750.2>] 'POST' /carb%2Fgrid%2Fstate4k%2Fhpms/_bulk_docs
{1,1} from ""
> Headers: [{'Accept',"application/json"},
>          {'Authorization',"Basic amFtZXM6eW9ndXJ0IHRvb3RocGFzdGUgc2hvZXM="},
>          {'Content-Length',"346"},
>          {'Content-Type',"application/json"},
>          {'Host',""},
>          {'User-Agent',"CouchDB/1.4.0"},
>          {"X-Couch-Full-Commit","false"}]
> [Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:57:15 GMT] [debug] [<0.28750.2>] OAuth Params: []
> [Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:57:15 GMT] [debug] [<0.175.0>] Worker flushing doc batch of
size 128531 bytes
> And that was it.  CouchDB was down and out.
> I even tried shutting off the data processing (so as to reduce the db
> load) on box B, but that didn't help (all the crashing has put it far
> behind in replicating box A and C).
> My guess is that the replication load is too big (too many
> connections, too much data being pushed in), but I would expect some
> sort of warning before the server dies.  
> Any clues or suggestions would be appreciated.  I am currently going
> to try compling from source directly, but I don't have much faith that
> it will make a difference.
> Thanks,
> James Marca
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.

View raw message