You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@couchdb.apache.org by Germain Maurice <ge...@linkfluence.net> on 2010/03/26 11:02:33 UTC
Replication -- explaining errors
Hi all,
Still with my problems with replication.
I will write you a report on a crash of couchdb happened this night but
now i launched again continuous replication hostA to hostB and i get
this error on hostA :
[Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:55:01 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
couch_rep_httpc post request in 16.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
[Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:56:13 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
couch_rep_httpc post request in 32.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
[Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:57:42 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
couch_rep_httpc post request in 64.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
[Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:59:40 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
couch_rep_httpc post request in 128.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
What does it mean ?
I have this on my status on hostA:
Replication 865491: database -> http://hostB:5984/database/ W
Processed source update #9223069
Thank you
--
Germain Maurice
Administrateur Système/Réseau
Tel : +33.(0)1.42.43.54.33
http://www.linkfluence.net
**linkfluence news & events**
2009 excellence award nominee from ESOMAR
2009 marketing research silver award from semo & marketing magazine (France)
2009 european excellence award recipient (PR evaluation, wahlradar.de, joint project with Publicis Consultants)
Re: Replication -- explaining errors
Posted by Randall Leeds <ra...@gmail.com>.
Germain,
Would you mind sending me the other couch_rep_httpc lines from your log?
Specifically, I want to see the one that says
couch_rep_httpc post request in 0.5 seconds...
Thanks.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 13:20, Randall Leeds <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:02, Germain Maurice
> <ge...@linkfluence.net> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Still with my problems with replication.
>>
>> I will write you a report on a crash of couchdb happened this night but now
>> i launched again continuous replication hostA to hostB and i get this error
>> on hostA :
>>
>> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:55:01 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
>> couch_rep_httpc post request in 16.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
>> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:56:13 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
>> couch_rep_httpc post request in 32.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
>> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:57:42 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
>> couch_rep_httpc post request in 64.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
>> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:59:40 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
>> couch_rep_httpc post request in 128.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
>
> This means that during replication, Couch has issued a post request
> (most likely this means it's /_ensure_full_commit during a
> checkpoint) and that it timed out. The retry time backs off
> exponential. Replication will crash after 10 retries.
>
> There was a bug on 0.10.1 with replication crashing. I attempted to
> fix some of the causes, but there are still some issues it seems. I
> can reproduce this in production too, and I've had no luck tracking it
> down yet. I'm going to re-open the 597 ticket and continue the
> discussion there.
>
> -Randall
>
Re: Replication -- explaining errors
Posted by Randall Leeds <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:02, Germain Maurice
<ge...@linkfluence.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Still with my problems with replication.
>
> I will write you a report on a crash of couchdb happened this night but now
> i launched again continuous replication hostA to hostB and i get this error
> on hostA :
>
> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:55:01 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
> couch_rep_httpc post request in 16.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:56:13 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
> couch_rep_httpc post request in 32.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:57:42 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
> couch_rep_httpc post request in 64.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:59:40 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
> couch_rep_httpc post request in 128.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
This means that during replication, Couch has issued a post request
(most likely this means it's /_ensure_full_commit during a
checkpoint) and that it timed out. The retry time backs off
exponential. Replication will crash after 10 retries.
There was a bug on 0.10.1 with replication crashing. I attempted to
fix some of the causes, but there are still some issues it seems. I
can reproduce this in production too, and I've had no luck tracking it
down yet. I'm going to re-open the 597 ticket and continue the
discussion there.
-Randall
Re: Replication -- explaining errors
Posted by Randall Leeds <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:02, Germain Maurice
<ge...@linkfluence.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Still with my problems with replication.
>
> I will write you a report on a crash of couchdb happened this night but now
> i launched again continuous replication hostA to hostB and i get this error
> on hostA :
>
> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:55:01 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
> couch_rep_httpc post request in 16.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:56:13 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
> couch_rep_httpc post request in 32.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:57:42 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
> couch_rep_httpc post request in 64.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
> [Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:59:40 GMT] [debug] [<0.2466.0>] retrying
> couch_rep_httpc post request in 128.0 seconds due to {error, req_timedout}
This means that during replication, Couch has issued a post request
(most likely this means it's /_ensure_full_commit during a
checkpoint) and that it timed out. The retry time backs off
exponential. Replication will crash after 10 retries.
There was a bug on 0.10.1 with replication crashing. I attempted to
fix some of the causes, but there are still some issues it seems. I
can reproduce this in production too, and I've had no luck tracking it
down yet. I'm going to re-open the 597 ticket and continue the
discussion there.
-Randall