On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Ben Browning <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think I've captured, at least at a high-level, the general consensus >> on partitioning here: >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Partitioning_proposal >> > > This looks great to me, thanks for capturing it here! The actual > hashing of docids and merging of view queries will probably not be the > hard part. I expect the hard part to be configuration and management > of nodes across machines, as well as communication between nodes. > > There has been some work to make CouchDB more OTP-like (having trouble > finding links...) and I think doing that first could make the rest of > this job much easier. > > Thinking we should move this conversation to dev@ to ensure we get the > right people's attention. ('scuse the cross-post.) > > Chris > > -- > Chris Anderson > http://jchris.mfdz.com >
I'm starting to believe that becoming more OTP compliant is going to be the most (immediately) important aspect of supporting CouchDB nodes that span physical hosts. By getting the core bits of functionality separated into OTP modules/apps/units/appropriate-term replacing bits of CouchDB functionality becomes *alot* easier. I think a good place for figuring out how to make the different bits work would be to sit down and figure out a modular split for CouchDB and then make those our OTP bits. Then with a configurable setup, having a plugin that replaces the entire storage system (with say, a distributed btree implementation) would be as easy as changing an INI setting. HTH, Paul Davis
