Hi Jan, Clemens, Thanks for the replies, glad to hear that it all seems to be in hand and moving the right direction :)
Regarding the issue I was having, it’s exactly the one that you, Clemens, had in the linked github issue. I’ll try messing with the vm settings and see if that helps. Assuming that works, it would be interesting if we could detect that in the cluster setup and display a message that would point people in the right direction. Cheers Kerr -- Kerr Rainey > On 14 Jan 2016, at 12:29, Clemens Stolle <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Kerr, > Jan summarized it pretty well. For more information you can check out this > github issue: https://github.com/klaemo/docker-couchdb/issues/22 > Basically, klaemo/docker-couchdb == apache/couchdb-docker until the move is > complete. Then klaemo/docker-couchdb will slowly fade away and no one will > remember it haha. > > The Dockerfile in apache/couchdb is strictly for development of CouchDB > itself. There is a pull request for it > https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/340 which could be merged *nudge > nudge*. > > Concerning your problems with the dockerized 2.0-dev, there are indeed some > weird unresolved startup issues. Please check out > https://github.com/klaemo/docker-couchdb/issues/41 maybe you can even provide > some insight. > > The current 2.0-dev image is for testing, not for production use. You’re > right that we won’t be running multiple nodes in one container normally. We > might need to explore different patterns and ways of distribution for 2.0 > because if its clustered setup. > > Thanks for you interest! > > Clemens > >> Am 14.01.2016 um 12:53 schrieb Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]>: >> >> Heya Kerr, >> >> thanks for writing! >> >>> On 13 Jan 2016, at 14:43, Kerr Rainey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I’ve not looked at CouchDB for a long time and it’s great to see 2.0 >>> getting a bit of movement. Fantastic job everyone! >> >> Thank you :) >> >> >>> I’ve been messing about with CouchDB in docker and have a few questions. >>> >>> I see that there is a dockerfile in the main apache/couchdb repo as well as >>> everything in the apache/couchdb-docker repo. Both have been updated >>> recently. Do they have different defined purposes? I can see the actual >>> differences, but I’m wondering what the plan is here. >> >> In rough terms, the apache/couchdb/Dockerfile is to get someone, who wants >> to write a patch for CouchDB, up and running quickly without having to mess >> with installing the right Erlang version and whatnot. apache/couchdb-docker >> is more for production deployments. >> >> >>> With regard to the apache/couchdb-docker repo, at a glance it looks >>> identical to the klaemo/docker-couchdb "🐳Source of the official Apache >>> CouchDB Docker image” repo. I’m a little hazy on the github details here in >>> terms of forks and how these are linked. Clearly Clemens is doing the bulk >>> (all?) of the work here (great job, thanks), and the activity seems to >>> happening “over there”. I notice also that the request to >>> docker-library/official-images for the official CouchDB Docker images point >>> to klaemo/docker-couchdb. This seems a little confusing to me. Am I missing >>> something? Planed, just not there yet? >> >> This is mostly an infrastructure situation. klaemo/docker-couchdb was >> donated to the ASF by klaemo and is now tracked at apache/couchdb-docker. >> However, ASF infra is not yet 100% ready to just take over GitHub projects >> 1:1, and we’d love to move everything over including issues and all, and >> that’s still being worked on. So for the time being, we have both. >> >> >>> Finally, obviously there are many scenarios for dockerizing couchdb, and it >>> looks like the current dev one is geared to testing out a little cluster, >>> which is probably what we need right now. For production I suspect that it >>> would rarely be a good idea to have more than one CouchDB server running in >>> a single container. Presumably we could explore some good patterns for >>> production deployments of couchdb in docker and have those images readily >>> available. >> >> Definitely! >> >> >>> I’m actually having a problem running klaemo/couchdb:2.0-dev image, failing >>> to start because of a connection error [Errno 111] while running cluster >>> setup (not the expected error when check nodes). I’ve not dug into it yet, >>> but please shout if it’s a known issue. >> >> A few connection errors are expected (this is a cluster starting and a >> while/sleep loop checking if a node made it up yet), does it eventually >> finish, or do you get only connection errors after start up? Can you paste a >> log somewhere? >> >> Best >> Jan >> -- >> >> >> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Kerr >>> >>> -- >>> Kerr Rainey >>> >>> >>> >> >
