You're quite right, Joan. 

B.

> On 17 Aug 2018, at 01:53, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hey everyone,
> 
> Doesn't 'emfile' mean too many open file handles? Arif, check your file 
> handle limit as well as permissions on the files, see:
> 
>    
> http://docs.couchdb.org/en/stable/maintenance/performance.html#maximum-open-file-descriptors-ulimit
> 
> Finally, we have a very good bit of documentation now that improves on 
> Robert's excellent SO post, we recommend using these instructions now 
> instead: 
> 
>    http://docs.couchdb.org/en/stable/cluster/sharding.html
> 
> -Joan "yay good documentation" Touzet
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Samuel Newson" <[email protected]>
> To: "user" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:03:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Couch 2.x cluster returning inconsistent _all_docs
> 
> the word 'emfile' indicates the immediate problem is one of file permissions. 
> The user that couchdb is running as is unable to open the shards/5... file. 
> So you probably need a recursive chmod/chown session to fix up ownership and 
> permissions.
> 
> Secondly, you have changed the names of 2 nodes. This is ... unwise. All 
> clustered databases address their data files using the node names, so what 
> you've effectively done is delete 2 of the 3 copies of your databases, which 
> would explain the weird inconsistencies.
> 
> I wrote a stackoverflow post a while ago on how to correctly move an 
> individual shard which explains some of the internals: 
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6676972/moving-a-shard-from-one-bigcouch-server-to-another-for-balancing.
> 
> For your situation, I believe you will need to update all the documents in 
> the _dbs database and substitute your old node names for the new node names. 
> I strongly advise you take a backup of everything you can.
> 
> For others observing this thread, I strongly advise against renaming nodes 
> like this, it can only lead to trouble, and potentially data loss.
> 
> B.
> 
>> On 16 Aug 2018, at 19:25, Arif Khan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> emfile
> 

Reply via email to