On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Joachim Schipper <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 don't have to monitor databases, this will be the db. about custom change handler I think I need it anyway since the users will have the possibility to replicate their database. I prefer to let sockets free for that . Anyway thanks for your feedback, it's useful. > > I take it that "SGBD" is the French equivalent of RDBMS? > yes sry
