couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: view/index rebuild in v2.0
Date Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:57:08 GMT
Please note that absolutely *zero* work has been done on our Windows
port in terms of performance characterization and optimization.

I'd be interested in hearing your results on the exact same hardware
running the Linux version of CouchDB 2.0 - my hunch is that it will
perform significantly better.

-Joan

----- Original Message -----
> From: "DA" <daniel.adam903@gmail.com>
> To: user@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 1:50:30 PM
> Subject: Re: view/index rebuild in v2.0
> 
> Hi,
> thanks Peter, but I was thinking of a measures suitable for
> production usage.
> 
> Meanwhile, few observations:
> - the 8 respective indexer tasks are not progressing evenly, some are
> at 50%, some at 90%
> - I noticed the system usage fell by almost 50%, both CPU and disk
> activity.
> So the system is now even more under-utilized, quite strange.
> 
> When it's completed, I will try the same excercise on an SSD disk.
> 
> Cheers, Daniel
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:03 AM Peyton Vaughn <pvaughn@6fusion.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Daniel,
> > Do you have 'delayed_commits' set to true? It's now defaulted to
> > false in
> > couch 2.0, but it really causes a pretty hefty performance hit when
> > disabled.
> >
> > Peyton
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Daniel Adam
> > <daniel.adam903@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I'm running an index/view re-generation with 10M documents,
> > > 10views,
> > having
> > > 1 node and 8 shards on it.
> > > It seems it will take more than 1 day. What are limiting factors
> > > for
> > that?
> > > Looking at perfromance monitoring tools (Task Manager and Process
> > > Explorer), it seems neither I/O or CPU is saturated:
> > > CPU (8 cores) each core taking <30% its capacity
> > > I/O reads ~ 8MB/s
> > > I/O writes ~ 1.5MB/s
> > >
> > > Windows 7 64bit
> > > 16GB memory
> > > Intel i7-4800 @ 2.7GHz
> > > HDD Seagate ST500LM0
> > >
> > > Any explanation why the system limits are not being saturated?
> > > Seems to
> > me
> > > the bottleneck is I/O, but the disk is capable of 100MB/s
> > > throughput in
> > > sequential reads/writes. If the limiting factor is indeed I/O, I
> > > assume
> > > changing number of shards would not gain much, possibly even 1
> > > shard
> > would
> > > provide a similar speed.
> > >
> > > Any way to improve the speed of index rebuild?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Daniel
> > >
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message