Hi, thanks for taking time to reply. Actually, there are no duplicate documents, nor are there any deletions. This is the result of posting ~ a million small documents to the cluster.
I'll run compaction when I have a chance and see what impact that has. On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > Are you updating one doc over and over? That's my inference. Also you'll > need to run compaction on all shards then look at the distribution > afterward. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 22 Jul 2016, at 21:02, Peyton Vaughn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I've been working through getting a Couch cluster set up in Kubernetes. > > Finally got to the point of testing it and am a bit surprised by the > > distribution of data I see amongst the shards (this is for 2 nodes on 2 > > separate host): > > > > node1: > > ~>du -hs * > > > > 6.7G shards/00000000-1fffffff > > 855M shards/20000000-3fffffff > > 859M shards/40000000-5fffffff > > 856M shards/60000000-7fffffff > > 859M shards/80000000-9fffffff > > 858M shards/a0000000-bfffffff > > 6.5G shards/c0000000-dfffffff > > 851M shards/e0000000-ffffffff > > > > node2: > > ~>du -hs * > > 853M 00000000-1fffffff > > 855M 20000000-3fffffff > > 859M 40000000-5fffffff > > 856M 60000000-7fffffff > > 859M 80000000-9fffffff > > 858M a0000000-bfffffff > > 853M c0000000-dfffffff > > 851M e0000000-ffffffff > > > > Two of the shards really stand out in terms of disk usage... so I was > > wondering if this is expected behavior, or have I managed to misconfigure > > something? > > > > > > I really appreciate any insight - am really trying to understand 2.0 as > > best I can. > > Thanks! > > Peyton > >
