On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:11:43AM +0200, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Joachim Schipper
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 08:24:43AM +0200, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Joachim Schipper
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > (...) [U]se a database for all state and replicate that. (...)
> >> > [Or] a static site. What issue are you trying to solve?
> >>
> >> Wan't to replicate a full couchdb (http://couchb.org) node. For now
> >> replication of couchdb works only per db and over http. So if i have
> >> 1000 db I will have 1000 http connections open on the same machines.
> >> It's somehow dangerous. That's why I'm/was looking for a way to
> >> replicate on the fs level rather than db level. I've since developped
> >> (yesterday morning) a global change handler that allow me to know in
> >> quasi rt changes in all dbs of a couchdb node. That could hep for a
> >> global replication I guess. I will do more tests/try today, but any
> >> other idee is welcome :)
> >
> > I don't think having a thousand databases is a good idea, but exactly
> > how are a thousand HTTP connections bad? (...)
> > Note: I'm not saying it's a good idea, just that it'll work.
>
> Sure it will work but we speak only about 1000 connections. Also don't
> see couchdb databases as SGBD databases, concept and use is diferent.
> So it may be possible to have such number.
>
> Anyway lot of connections will tajke resources but it's also hard to
> monitor compared to one connection to replicate all the dbs. I've now
> this possibility so it will be easier anyway :)
Hmm, yes, a thousand connections are hard to monitor. But if you can't
monitor a thousand basic objects (connections), what makes you think
that you can deal with a thousand complex objects (databases)? It's not
my problem, and feel free to solve it any way you want - I'm just not
sure that some change-handler hack is the proper solution.
I take it that "SGBD" is the French equivalent of RDBMS?
Joachim
