we're using .91. going to switch to .10 in the next few days. i'll do the diff tonight.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Alex P <[email protected]> wrote: > > i'll take a peek tonight, but it just doesn't sound like corruption. the > db > > is visible, readable, writable, just has an update sequence of 0, 0 docs > and > > a db size (as reported by futon) of 4.0kb. > > > > is db size computed off the file size, or based on actual contents? > because > > if it's the file size, it really doesn't sound like corruption... > > > > I think it just reports the file size. So if the SAN-restore only > brought back 4kb, then there's something to investigate. > > It could be that the SAN inserted a few bytes randomly in the file, so > CouchDB couldn't find a btree root at the position indicated by the > header. > > Which version of CouchDB are you using? > > I think it's worth diffing the before-restore and after-restore files. > If the after-restore is really only 4kb then of course CouchDB isn't > seeing docs in it. > > > > > > (fwiw this is a separate, yet similar issue from the one i had earlier > with > > data disappearing from a live system) > > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Alex P <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> cdb catalogs databases purely on file name and presence in the > appropriate > >> directory, right? so if i copy db1 to db1_copy, i should see db1_copy > show > >> up in futon? > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Paul Davis < > [email protected]>wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Alex P <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > hello, > >>> > > >>> > we ran into an issue this weekend where taking a SAN (amazon ebs) > >>> snapshot > >>> > of a couchdb mount somehow brought over only part of the data. > >>> specifically, > >>> > there were two small dbs (call them db1 and db2) on the couch > instance, > >>> each > >>> > with several hundred documents. taking the snapshot and bringing it > up > >>> again > >>> > showed both databases, but one had 0 documents and an update sequence > of > >>> 0. > >>> > the instance the snapshot was taken from still has both databases > >>> showing > >>> > with several hundred databases. we repeated this process several > times, > >>> with > >>> > the same effect, on the same db. > >>> > > >>> > any thoughts would be much appreciated, as we are about to go live, > and > >>> not > >>> > being able to do a backup of our db is ... disturbing. > >>> > > >>> > thanks, > >>> > alex. > >>> > > >>> > >>> Alex, > >>> > >>> That's most odd. What happens if you try and cp the database file to a > >>> new name? Something like: > >>> > >>> $ cp /usr/local/var/lib/couchdb/db1.couch > >>> /usr/local/var/lib/couchdb/db3.couch > >>> > >>> Another thing to try would be: > >>> > >>> $ curl -X POST http://127.0.0.1:5984/db1/_ensure_full_commit > >>> > >>> And then try to snapshot or copy again. I highly doubt that POST would > >>> affect anything, but it might be worth a shot. > >>> > >>> Paul Davis > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Chris Anderson > http://jchrisa.net > http://couch.io >
