incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Marca <jma...@translab.its.uci.edu>
Subject Re: An old database causes couchdb 1.3.0 to crash getting single documents
Date Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:16:25 GMT
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:46:59AM +0200, Dave Cottlehuber wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 09:50, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > Did you compact this database with any version of couchdb between
> > 0.9.0 and 1.3.0? I'm fairly sure we dropped the upgrade code for 0.9 a
> > while back.
> >
> > B.
> 
> Yup, 1.1.2 is the last one with 0.9 on-disk format compatibility. At a
> minimum you'll need to go 0.9 -> 1.1.2, compact, and then step to
> 1.3.0 should be OK.
> 
> Also exactly what version you're migrating from will make a difference:
> 
>     http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Breaking_changes
> 
> You may need to update your view code, query code as well, and it's
> possible for non-valid utf-8 docs to be rejected also if they are
> present. I am not sure how an upgrade handles that.
> 
> Benoit - you did a big upgrade a while back, do you remember what your
> version stepping ended up requiring? IIRC you needed to go to 1.0.4
> first, but I don't recall why.


I was able to get couchdb 1.2.x running on this machine, but 1.1.x
dies on start.  

1.2.x does not compact this db.  I got some quick
erlang errors, then RAM usage slowly rose to 95% so I killed it.

Other dbs of the same "generation" work fine...I can access them and
build views and so on. The only difference in the dbs is the data.
The problem one is the first one I started using, before I decided to
manually shard the data.  All the dbs identical design docs and all
that.  My wild ass guess is that it's something I did early on in the
early batches of model runs polluting the db.

After a week of fighting this (my awareness of the scope of the
problem built slowly!), I'm thinking it might be easier to just
re-run my models, and re-generate the data...at least then the problem
is just CPU time.

Thanks for the advice.

James



> 
> A+
> Dave

Mime
View raw message