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 6B64C17C4B for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 11324 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jan 2016 18:04:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 11250 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jan 2016 18:04:59 -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 11236 invoked by uid 99); 29 Jan 2016 18:04:59 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:04:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id C6E58C15DF for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:04:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.13 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.13 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0iYnqWpbvQei for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:04:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com (mail-wm0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 973B520C6A for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:04:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f42.google.com with SMTP id r129so79382568wmr.0 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:04:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=H/GLDT1XpeWoqRn6H9LKVdJGpRAUS6jysVJUwYOb8eU=; b=YBLWRJVklsqFtsznGUukNmKeAJ4MVC8X03A87GnOWRlchiiypBIwVTJgD5tdoHao23 ShmnBwbdUm78L1LRzIOQJrlDYLZOoIs5/iHeIj/xatqqQlHBYdSVjf70BOxVH93YWfun +TRYnyfjIaWApXwomy7kme4i5oHie2UoSY6dkihzAQdepE4elY+A7R/aT2afWrULYIMM LDztM/y3F5J99cHcBibFLi3lt0uiDSK4u8pN+A+H+oJnr28RRc/M+uXqgvZaQZFUJXV/ tggAk4Zi2QFsucDbO93ITao9keNybBHB5eunuE4BzK8QAjpEXJd6Kdu3nis4ZTJid7wI FW6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=H/GLDT1XpeWoqRn6H9LKVdJGpRAUS6jysVJUwYOb8eU=; b=eNaZfCsDtRPWoZVmEcJsqGJzaPI900l35nTnGXgLZzHrh8vzWzIeTy8H0Nckz8ssUz 59Tsj1WpvuCftNKdEqV0qLZhPQFuxJdRtwwGsJQntAd27sD5+z78wrewuZKstGsBzNRd rJNvaxVdZ6cHsabVLItb7HJ/608EN4rJMuTGeAorpz/J1xNWKBZ+LgpG6hbu5EyNQIVt H+RzUYbloud6PBWLb2V72N6Lje4qxS9q8bNpyWyHKHi9sEYuy/4NRsaajg4XDZs63GvU wk0B6FAfcxO3oUMN/n5QduUYTwhMnRXQJGA+GTaWxZuhVDSBWWD77JbXGXAXxoxQIjMU Xq0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQ4n7wxYFBqQNO5S16RdRAuc/RP4Ra2Pb+YIDDSydRdgW83toKKJa5G1wOMMUsI6RxO3x+P9k3jW2aN8Q== X-Received: by 10.28.97.11 with SMTP id v11mr11065206wmb.42.1454090692349; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:04:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.21.197 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:04:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Nick Wood Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:04:32 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: crash reports To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1148ea88305736052a7cdfd1 --001a1148ea88305736052a7cdfd1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Can you recommend an ideal erlang version to use? I'm not using https. Nick On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Alexander Shorin wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Nick Wood wrote: > > I updated both servers to use this container image - > > https://hub.docker.com/r/klaemo/couchdb/~/dockerfile/ which is what I > > believe the CouchDB team is trying to base it's official docker image off > > of. > > That's true. > > > When I cycle through all ~1100 of our databases and do a non-continuous > > replication, I don't receive a single error or crash. I continuously > queue > > 20 of them into the _replicator database and I can see it processing > about > > 2 per second. (on a side note, any idea why it only does 2-3 per second > > when I can see plenty of available disk, ram and cpu? Seems like there's > an > > internal hard-code delay maybe?) > > There are no any hardcoded delays of such kind. > > No ideas, except some docker-specific issues or constraints. I would > try to remove docker, do plain install and ensure that there are no > any issues with you setup, and then try to dig into what other people > reports about their docker apps under load and which issues they > faced. Finally, debug your container to see what causes delays. That's > the list I would follow in same situation. > > > Might I still have a broken version of erlang? It looks like the version > I > > ended up with using that docker image is 17.3. > > Erlang 17.3 is broken indeed, you should avoid this release. > Especially, if you use https. > > -- > ,,,^..^,,, > --001a1148ea88305736052a7cdfd1--