Clojurians Log v2

@val_waeselynck Yeah we’re already experimenting with that, and maybe it’s good enough. But if those tests take 1 second each because of setup/teardown of Datomic databases, that’s too long for me. For unit tests, I prefer to keep things as lean as possible.

I just updated Datomic from 1.0.6165 to 1.0.6202, both the transactor, and the peer library in my program. Now, "nothing works anymore". Interestingly, Datomic Console can still connect fine. But my program cannot anymore, giving me `AMQ212037: Connection failure has been detected: AMQ119011: Did not receive data from server for org.apache.activemq.artemis.core.remoting.impl.netty.NettyConnection@3145e5fe[local= /127.0.0.1:36065, remote=localhost/127.0.0.1:4334 ] [code=CONNECTION_TIMEDOUT]. AMQ119010: Connection is destroyed` https://termbin.com/wnhzu

Any ideas what could be causing this?

@stefan.van.den.oord forking solves that problem

Put a populated db value in some Var, and then create a Datomock connection from it in each test, there's virtually no overhead to this

Sounds good, will definitely try, thanks! 🙂

Hi, I need some clarification about Datomic Cloud vs. OnPrem setup. Difference 1 in the cloud guide (https://docs.datomic.com/on-prem/moving-to-cloud.html#aws-integration) states: > Datomic apps that do not run on AWS must target On-Prem Is this because of technical reasons or a licence thing? Our clients are all in on Azure, but we need a Datomic database. Should I convince them to bite the bullet and let us deploy on AWS, or do we have to deploy Datomic OnPremise on a Azure environment?

When datomic reports an anomaly :cognitect.anomalies/busy with category :cluster.error/db-not-ready, what is exactly the problem that datomic is having (cpu load?) and how could I go about mitigating this in the short term? Or is it just that my peers are severly overloaded and I need to add more 😛?

I suppose that is a bit draconian You certainly could run Datomic Cloud in AWS and run your application in Azure

you'd have to handle the network stuff to make sure it was secure

and you'd be paying the cross-cloud latency

the set of "active" databases on each node (query group or primary compute group instance) is dynamic. Datomic 'unloads' inactive databases after a period of time

That's what I thought. Just plug in the client config pointing to AWS, but the main app runs on Azure. So it must be a licensing issue then

if you issue a request to connect to a db that's not currently 'active', the serving node has to load that DB's current memory index/context/etc

that's what the anomaly you're seeing indicates

if you have only a few DBs in your system, you can use the preload db parameter in your compute group (or query group) cloudformation to automatically load those DBs on any node at startup

it's not a licenseing issue

it's a 'we need to write that sentence better` issue

you are definitely free to do that ^

Ahh okay got it, thank you 🙂

there is no way to run Datomic Cloud in Azure

but if you're OK with the cross-cloud configs/tradeoffs, there is no reason you can't do that

Yeah it would be like a datomic onPrem installation targeting a postgres DB on azure, but even typing this sounds a bit stupid

i mean, it's not that bad; I've definitely talked to several customers using Cloud and hosting their apps elsewhere

GCP mostly

I see, fair enough. I talk to my client then. Thanks again!

sure

(This is an on prem peer server btw). But thats unique databases, or also database values at different t?

unique databases

Is there a way we can deal with this? We have around 12 databases in total, with only 1 (production) db being largely hit (and 2 little production dbs). How come it changes the active database after all?

does this only occur on starting up a new peer server?

No, it appears to occur randomly every few seconds or so

is it always db-not-ready?

how many peer servers do you have running?

We did plug a second peer server today, so we have 2 now. Loadbalanced by haproxy, no sticky sessions

Predominantly, yeah. We did see an ops limit reached exception before, but I can’t confirm right now when I last saw that

do you have cpu and memory metrics from the peer server?

Just for posterity/googlers: We ended up severing datomics connection to a badly provisioned memcached, which reduced these errors significantly. Can’t say for sure thats the problem, tho

What Java version?

Running datomic on-prem+dynamodb with a very large database (>6 billion datoms). I’m noticing large amounts of data (3-5GB) written to the data directory that appear to be lucene fulltext indexes. Is this a scratch space for the transactor’s fulltext indexing?

I ask because I see three items with old timestamps and I’m wondering if I can delete them.

Also, that seems really big, is this normal?

should I be provisioning a separate or faster disk for this?

To be clear, this is 3-5gb per directory under fulltext and I currently have 3 of them