couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: incomplete replication under 2.0.0
Date Fri, 10 Mar 2017 06:40:49 GMT
Were the six missing documents newer on the target? That is, did you delete them on the target
and expect another replication to restore them?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Mar 2017, at 22:08, Christopher D. Malon <malon@groupring.net> wrote:
> 
> I replicated a database (continuously), but ended up with fewer
> documents in the target than in the source.  Even if I wait,
> the remaining documents don't appear.
> 
> 1. Here's the DB entry on the source machine, showing 12 documents:
> 
> {"db_name":"library","update_seq":"61-g1AAAAFTeJzLYWBg4MhgTmEQTM4vTc5ISXLIyU9OzMnILy7JAUoxJTIkyf___z8rkQGPoiQFIJlkD1bHjE-dA0hdPFgdIz51CSB19WB1BnjU5bEASYYGIAVUOh-_mRC1CyBq9-P3D0TtAYja-1mJbATVPoCoBbqXKQsA-0Fvaw","sizes":{"file":181716,"external":11524,"active":60098},"purge_seq":0,"other":{"data_size":11524},"doc_del_count":0,"doc_count":12,"disk_size":181716,"disk_format_version":6,"data_size":60098,"compact_running":false,"instance_start_time":"0"}
> 
> 2. Here's the DB entry on the target machine, showing 6 documents:
> 
> {"db_name":"library","update_seq":"6-g1AAAAFTeJzLYWBg4MhgTmEQTM4vTc5ISXLIyU9OzMnILy7JAUoxJTIkyf___z8rkQGPoiQFIJlkD1bHhE-dA0hdPFgdIz51CSB19QTV5bEASYYGIAVUOh-_GyFqF0DU7idG7QGI2vvEqH0AUQvyfxYA1_dvNA","sizes":{"file":82337,"external":2282,"active":5874},"purge_seq":0,"other":{"data_size":2282},"doc_del_count":0,"doc_count":6,"disk_size":82337,"disk_format_version":6,"data_size":5874,"compact_running":false,"instance_start_time":"0"}
> 
> 3. Here's _active_tasks for the task, converted to YAML for readability:
> 
> - changes_pending: 0
>  checkpoint_interval: 30000
>  checkpointed_source_seq: 61-g1AAAAJTeJyd0EsOgjAQBuAqxsfSE-gRKK08VnIT7UwhSBAWyl
> pvojfRm-hNsLQkbAgRNtOkk__L5M8IIcvEkmSNRYmJhDArUGRJcblmajUVBDZVVaWJJchZfSwAucPQkW
> RV5jKKT3kke-KwVRP2jWBpgdMAwcOuTJ8U1tKhkSZaYhS5x2GodKylWyPZWnJ9QW3KBkr5TE1yV4_CHu
> 1dMeyQ-c4o7Wm0V9u4F9setaM_GzfK2yifWplrxYeAcuGOuulrNN3X1PTFgXPqd-XSHxdwuSQ
>  continuous: !!perl/scalar:JSON::PP::Boolean 1
>  database: shards/00000000-1fffffff/_replicator.1489086006
>  doc_id: 172.16.100.222_library
>  doc_write_failures: 0
>  docs_read: 12
>  docs_written: 12
>  missing_revisions_found: 12
>  node: couchdb@localhost
>  pid: <0.5521.0>
>  replication_id: c60427215125bd97559d069f6fb3ddb4+continuous+create_target
>  revisions_checked: 12
>  source: http://172.16.100.222:5984/library/
>  source_seq: 61-g1AAAAJTeJyd0EsOgjAQBuAqxsfSE-gRKK08VnIT7UwhSBAWylpvojfRm-hNsLQkbAgRNtOkk__L5M8IIcvEkmSNRYmJhDArUGRJcblmajUVBDZVVaWJJchZfSwAucPQkWRV5jKKT3kke-KwVRP2jWBpgdMAwcOuTJ8U1tKhkSZaYhS5x2GodKylWyPZWnJ9QW3KBkr5TE1yV4_CHu1dMeyQ-c4o7Wm0V9u4F9setaM_GzfK2yifWplrxYeAcuGOuulrNN3X1PTFgXPqd-XSHxdwuSQ
>  started_on: 1489086008
>  target: http://localhost:5984/library/
>  through_seq: 61-g1AAAAJTeJyd0EsOgjAQBuAqxsfSE-gRKK08VnIT7UwhSBAWylpvojfRm-hNsLQkbAgRNtOkk__L5M8IIcvEkmSNRYmJhDArUGRJcblmajUVBDZVVaWJJchZfSwAucPQkWRV5jKKT3kke-KwVRP2jWBpgdMAwcOuTJ8U1tKhkSZaYhS5x2GodKylWyPZWnJ9QW3KBkr5TE1yV4_CHu1dMeyQ-c4o7Wm0V9u4F9setaM_GzfK2yifWplrxYeAcuGOuulrNN3X1PTFgXPqd-XSHxdwuSQ
>  type: replication
>  updated_on: 1489096815
>  user: peer
> 
> 4. Here's the _replicator record for the task:
> 
> {"_id":"172.16.100.222_library","_rev":"2-8e6cf63bc167c7c7e4bd38242218572c","schema":1,"storejson":null,"source":"http://172.16.100.222:5984/library","target":"http://localhost:5984/library","create_target":true,"dont_storejson":1,"wholejson":{},"user_ctx":{"roles":["_admin"],"name":"peer"},"continuous":true,"owner":null,"_replication_state":"triggered","_replication_state_time":"2017-03-09T19:00:08+00:00","_replication_id":"c60427215125bd97559d069f6fb3ddb4"}
> 
> There should have been no conflicting transactions on the target host.
> The appearance of "61-*" in through_seq of the _active_tasks entry
> gives me a false sense of security; I only noticed the missing documents
> by chance.
> 
> A fresh replication to a different target succeeded without any
> missing documents.
> 
> Is there anything here that would tip me off that the target wasn't
> in sync with the source?  Is there a good way to resolve the condition?
> 
> Thanks,
> Christopher


Mime
View raw message