hm, this is a pickle. The out of the box settings are;
[chttpd] port = 5984 [httpd] port = 5986 You should always be talking to the chttpd port. The only thing that should be listening on port 5984 is couchdb itself, so perhaps you have two installations on the same machine? In any case, the change you should have made was; [chttpd] port = 5988 couchdb doesn't care which port you use but it matters enormously that you are coming into the clustered port (the 'c' in 'chttpd' means 'clustered'). B. > On 23 May 2017, at 09:04, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: > > Nasser, > > It looks like you are trying to connect only through the "back side" > port at port 5988. You should only use this port where instructed > in the documentation - specifically, for setting up clusters. > > Please try your experiment again through the port you've assigned > to the chttpd application - in your logfiles, port 5986, and let us > know if the problem persists. > > Best regards, > Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, 18 May, 2017 2:05:35 PM > Subject: Re: Truncated response when POST a _changes query > > Hi Nasser, > > I'm afraid not yet. Please remember that CouchDB is a volunteer-run > project, and we wear many hats. There are options for commercial > support of CouchDB if you need urgent support. > > Best regards, > Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nasser Ebrahim" <enas...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 6:04:46 AM > Subject: Re: Truncated response when POST a _changes query > > Hi Joan and Robert, > > Did you get a chance to look into the logs? Please let us know if you > need any further information or diagnostic data to progress this issue. > > Thank you, > > Nasser Ebrahim > > > On 5/9/17 2:42 PM, Nasser Ebrahim wrote: >> Thank you Joan and Robert for your inputs. >> >> We have tested with latest master of CouchDB and confirmed that the >> problem still exists. >> >> Regarding your questions: >> >> - We have tested with single node. We tried both client and server on >> the same machine and on different machines and it fails on both the >> cases. >> >> - The only changes we made to the ini file are : >> >> * to enable the logging level to debug. >> >> * change bind_address to 0.0.0.0 to let CouchDB listen any >> available IP address >> >> * change port from 5984 to 5988 as 5984 is used by another >> application in that machine. >> >> [log] >> level = debug >> >> [httpd] >> port = 5988 >> bind_address = 0.0.0.0 >> >> - We do not have any conflict version of the database in the system. >> >> - We have collected the CouchDB logs and Wireshark traces from the >> failing and passing cases (with delay while writing request body) and >> uploaded to >> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BxTjd-f_AKG5RlpUVHl5RkRiUGs >> >> Please review the logs and let us know whether they are good enough or >> you need more logs. >> >> Thank you, >> Nasser Ebrahim >> >> On 5/4/17 3:44 AM, Robert Samuel Newson wrote: >>> Agree with Joan, the most important thing is the log files. >>> >>> If couchdb can send an error in the response, it will (a 413 or 404, >>> etc, etc). >>> >>> But if we've already started the response and _then_ encounter an >>> error, we can't send any useful information in the response, we have >>> to close the connection. When that happens, we log the error. You >>> should find that the request id you got matches something in the logs. >>> >>> I expect it's a function_clause or case_clause, something of that >>> nature, and possibly indicating an unanticipated malformed request. >>> >>> Logs pls. >>> >>> B. >>> >>>> On 3 May 2017, at 20:42, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Nasser, >>>> >>>> Thank you for the report. >>>> >>>> Are you running against a single node or a clustered CouchDB 2.0 >>>> install? If clustered, how many nodes, and are they all running on >>>> the same machine, or different machines? Have you changed any >>>> settings in the ini files? >>>> >>>> What sort of database do you have? Does it have any conflicted >>>> versions in it? >>>> >>>> Do you have any CouchDB logfiles from when the error occurs? Do any >>>> of them show anything useful? You can set the logging level to debug >>>> to gather additional information. >>>> >>>> Please don't email logfiles directly to this list; you can share them >>>> with a service like gist.github.com, pastebin.com or paste.apache.org >>>> instead. >>>> >>>> Finally, have you tried running against our current master rather >>>> than the released 2.0 version? We've fixed a lot of bugs since then, >>>> and it's possible this bug has already been resolved as the result of >>>> an unrelated change. >>>> >>>> -Joan >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Nasser Ebrahim" <enas...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org >>>> Sent: Wednesday, 3 May, 2017 1:48:06 PM >>>> Subject: Truncated response when POST a _changes query >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> While doing the Cloudant swift test, we are getting truncated response >>>> when POST a _changes query to the CouchDB with document ID [ >>>> <http://docs.couchdb.org/en/2.0.0/api/database/changes.html>http://docs.couchdb.org/en/2.0.0/api/database/changes.html]. >>>> >>>> >>>> We are getting the failure very frequent while doing the test from a >>>> swift client on Linux with couchDB 2.0 as server. We compared the TCP >>>> stream of the passing and failing case and the request is exactly the >>>> same. Hence, we believe there is something going wrong while processing >>>> the request on the CouchDB side as we are getting the truncated >>>> response. >>>> Another interesting observation is that if we introduce a small delay >>>> (sleep) before writing the request body on the swift client side, the >>>> test is passing (the response from CouchDB is proper). Hence, we think >>>> this could be a timing related issue on the CouchDB side. >>>> While doing the same Cloudant swift test from Mac OS, we are observing >>>> the failure very rarely. We believe it could be the change in timing >>>> which hide the issue similar to when we introduce the delay while >>>> testing on Linux. >>>> The response from the CouchDB has three chunks. The first chunk is a >>>> standard text {"results”:[, the second chunk is the actual response and >>>> the last chunk is the standard stream terminator sequence. In the >>>> failing case, we are getting only the first chunk. Hence, it seems the >>>> failure occurred while processing the response on the CouchDB side. >>>> We have taken the CouchDB trace and Wireshark trace from the server >>>> side >>>> and we could confirm that the request is exactly the same between the >>>> passing and failing case where as the response is truncated on the >>>> CouchDB side during the failure. >>>> Please let us know whether you are aware of any such issues on the >>>> CouchDB side and what diagnostic documents are required for you to do >>>> the analysis. >>>> Thank you, >>>> Nasser Ebrahim >> >> >
