But it might be also because of me using a AWS free-tier server :(
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook> ________________________________ From: Joey Samonte <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:18 AM To: [email protected]; Joan Touzet Subject: Re: High CPU usage caused by clustering and/or replication? Seems that erl is the one having a 100% CPU usage, not couchjs, when running replication. Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook> ________________________________ From: Joan Touzet <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 11:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: High CPU usage caused by clustering and/or replication? Hi Joey, I'm going to oversimplify a bit here to make the explanation easier. If you check the process manager/top on each node, do you see couchjs responsible for that 100% CPU? Remember that views are not replicated, only documents. So if you have design documents that you replicated, those views may be being rebuilt. So-called "internal replication" will be placing segments of the database onto each node, and view building will be happening on each node as well. Since the view is also sharded, each shard of the database gets its own view shard; that has to be calculated independently on each node. Even if you're not building views, remember that a cluster places part of the database on each node, spreading the load out as equally as possible. In a standard 3-node cluster, each document write will be written redundantly to every node, meaning CPU load will be (mostly) equal across all 3 nodes as you write that document. Hope this helps, Joan ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joey Samonte" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 11:30:46 PM > Subject: High CPU usage caused by clustering and/or replication? > > Good day, > > I have setup a cluster with two nodes, and I am replicating the first > node to an existing database through a loadbalancer. But I am > getting a 100% CPU usage after a few minutes on both nodes. Is this > an issue with RC4? > > Thanks. >
