> On 23. Jänner 2014 at 23:28:11, Scott Weber (scotty2...@sbcglobal.net) wrote: > >From: Scott Weber <scotty2...@sbcglobal.net> >To: "user@couchdb.apache.org" <user@couchdb.apache.org> >Subject: Replication of attachment is extremely slow > Date: 23. Jänner 2014 23:27:36 > MEZ I have seen the same thing as the > poster below. Does anyone have a fix? Work around? > > is what I tried: > I attached a mixed content file to a document > (text+binary, kind of like a PDF). This was about 3 meg > or so. Then I triggered a replication to another database. > It took 30 seconds to replicate it *on the same box*.
> I deleted everything, and made several repeats of the this test. Scott, Rian, I don’t see this behaviour here. Would you mind trying a few things please? - provide public accessible test files - couch.log in debug mode preferably - get very specific on what is done, preferably via curl - or python http tool from httpie.org*** - this ideally should be shell-scriptable - and provide results incl timing - any handwavey statements about your DB size & doc types, & overall couch instance might be doing at that time? e.g. I’m doing this, on a well-specd MBP early 2011, OSX 10.9.1, running couch master 37c8459 on R16B03 in admin party, using 3 files: # approx 60MB pdf mainly with embedded images https://github.com/steveklabnik/CLOSURE/blob/master/CLOSURE.pdf?raw=true # 370K text-based PDF http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-08.pdf # ~20MB pdf mainly text http://hintjens.wdfiles.com/local--files/main%3Afiles/cc1pe.pdf alias pie="http --verify=no --json --pretty all --verbose --style fruity” COUCH=http://localhost:5984 # drop testy dbs and create new ones pie delete $COUCH/testy pie delete $COUCH/testy2 pie delete $COUCH/testy3 pie put $COUCH/testy pie put $COUCH/testy2 pie put $COUCH/testy3 time pie put $COUCH/testy/ietf/ppsp-8 < /tmp/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-08.pdf >> .22s user 0.07s system 86% cpu 0.333 total time pie put $COUCH/testy/cc1pe/cc1pe < /tmp/cc1pe.pdf >> 0.22s user 0.11s system 0% cpu 2:31.16 total time pie put $COUCH/testy/why/closure < /tmp/CLOSURE.pdf >> 0.23s user 0.18s system 0% cpu 7:21.40 total # replicate using _replicate API time pie post $COUCH/_replicate source=testy target=testy2 >> 0.22s user 0.07s system 13% cpu 2.070 total # replicate using _replicator DB pie post $COUCH/_replicator _id=t3 source=testy target=testy3 pie get $COUCH/_replicator/t3 # its more work to get the duration out here, subtract the two once complete >> less than 2 seconds For comparison ### The same files, to a remote large FreeBSD box running 1.5.0 + R16B02: swift: >> 0.26s user 0.09s system 26% cpu 1.311 total cc1pe: >> 0.31s user 0.50s system 0% cpu 1:46.56 total closure: >> 0.51s user 1.35s system 1% cpu 2:42.87 total replication: >> 0.27s user 0.09s system 14% cpu 2.477 total >> less than 2 seconds ### The same files to a local CouchDB 1.2.2 & R15B03: swift: >> 0.22s user 0.06s system 86% cpu 0.317 total cc1pe: >> 0.24s user 0.11s system 0% cpu 2:51.28 total closure: >> 0.23s user 0.20s system 0% cpu 4:55.81 total replication: >> 0.21s user 0.06s system 16% cpu 1.661 total ### ditto, but with cloudant on presumably linux shared infrastructure swift: >> 0.26s user 0.08s system 25% cpu 1.342 total cc1pe: >> .79s user 0.54s system 3% cpu 42.128 total closure: >> 1.78s user 1.36s system 1% cpu 3:37.14 total - skipped replication because its not a fair comparison. *** I like httpie because I can do this: http post $COUCH/_replicate source=testy target=testy2 which is pretty damn handy.
