since 2.0 there is more to this than copying the dbname.couch file around. For 
one thing, every database is now sharded, so you have several .couch files to 
copy (even if you only have one node). So make sure you've copied them all and 
kept their directory hierarchy. In addition there is a meta database called 
'_dbs' which is how couchdb knows where the shards of all databases are. In 
your old install, you will have a document in _dbs database named after the 
database you copied. You'll need to copy it to your new cluster and modify the 
node names embedded in the by_node and by_range attributes (assuming your new 
machine _has_ a different name. if they're both 'couchdb@127.0.0.1' you won't 
need this step).

We recommend replication as the means to move data from one couchdb instance to 
another rather than moving database files around by hand.

B.

-- 
  Robert Samuel Newson
  rnew...@apache.org

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, at 18:57, jtuc...@objektfabrik.de wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> we have a 2.2 instance running on Ubuntu Linux. It is a single node setup.
> 
> I am setting up a new Windows Development machine and tried copying the 
> .couch file from a backup to this new machine. On the CouchDb website, 
> only 2.3 is available for download for Windows.
> 
> So I copied the .couch from Linux to this Windows Machine into 
> C:\CouchDB\data. it is readable (no permission problems). But the 
> database doesn't show up in Fauxton, no matter how often I restart the 
> CouchDb service or WIndows.
> 
> The new machine is also set up as a single node and this way of doing 
> things has been working for years now (just the path where the databases 
> are has changed). If I create a database using Fauxton, it doesn't show 
> up in /data, but in the /shards subdirectories. But I don't have any 
> /shard files on the production Linux box.
> 
> So how can I restore this single database in a Windows Development machine?
> 
> 
> I am sure I forgot to mention something important about my versions and 
> setup. Sorry for that, please ask...
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Joachim
> 
> 

Reply via email to