On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Mahesh Paolini-Subramanya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, it just so happens that we have a (wicked) fast NFS server in-house, > which has the added benefit of being fault-tolerant, reliable, redundant > (and clearly fully buzz-word compliant). > The way I look at it, I'd *love* to use it for this purpose, and if flush() > is pretty much the only constraint, I doubt that I have an issue. > Clearly, however, the 'update=false' (or stale='ok', or whatever) will be a > much bigger problem.
As long as you only point one couchdb instance at those files, you should be fine. Couch can handle a lot of read load before you'll start to wish you could split it across hardware... And, I'm not certain that having more than one writer on the couch files would kill it right away. It just seems like it might be asking for trouble. > That said, any particular reason that we dont want to have a Read-Only view? Currently, just implementation details. I don't know if there are deeper reasons. Chris -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
