nicknaychov opened a new issue #2382: CouchDB backup instance - zones vs 
replicas?
URL: https://github.com/apache/couchdb/issues/2382
 
 
   Hi 
   I just got a nontraditional Christmas thought popping up in my mind :). I 
would like to setup backup of the main CouchDB install in second datacenter. 
Note that second setup will work only in case the first setup in the main 
datacenter is down. In the main datacenter I currently have  3 Couchdb's. In 
the second datacenter I would like to have 1 CouchDB. I do not want to mirror 
first setup of setting 3 VMs due to overhead related with that of 
managing&supporting another 3 VMs, plus cost is also consideration. 
   
   Initially I was thinking of setting second zone for CouchDB back up site 
with settings:
   
   q=3
   r=1
   w=1
   n=1
   z=2
   but not sure how adding new zone to existing setup works or if I need to do 
some re-balancing (I've never done CouchDB zoning). Plus I think this might be 
"over-engineering" of what I am trying to do. So I would like to find 
simpler/more effective approach, just like I do for each thing :)
   
   What about If I just move one of the three CouchDB nodes to the backup site?
   
   I known the read/writes should not happens over WAN and only replication 
should so what would be the best approach?
   
   Current setup is:
   
   ```
   q=3
   r=2
   w=2
   n=3
   ```
   so I am thinking of changing to :
   
   ```
   q=3
   r=1
   w=1
   n=3
   ```
   Thus I will guarantee that read and writes will not leave the site and 
happens over WAN.  This is important due to security concerns and prevent slow 
downs due to DB quorum requirements, while optimizing server setup at the same 
time?
   
   Or this is stupid and I should just use 2 zones?
   
   Any feedback or thoughts how you would backup your site instance and if 
above would work well will be much appreciated.
   
   Thanks 
   
   
   
   [NOTE]: # ( ^^ Provide a general summary of the RFC in the title above. ^^ )
   
   # Introduction
   
   ## Abstract
   
   [NOTE]: # ( Provide a 1-to-3 paragraph overview of the requested change. )
   [NOTE]: # ( Describe what problem you are solving, and the general approach. 
)
   
   ## Requirements Language
   
   [NOTE]: # ( Do not alter the section below. Follow its instructions. )
   
   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC 2119](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt).
   
   ## Terminology
   
   [TIP]:  # ( Provide a list of any unique terms or acronyms, and their 
definitions here.)
   
   ---
   
   # Detailed Description
   
   [NOTE]: # ( Describe the solution being proposed in greater detail. )
   [NOTE]: # ( Assume your audience has knowledge of, but not necessarily 
familiarity )
   [NOTE]: # ( with, the CouchDB internals. Provide enough context so that the 
reader )
   [NOTE]: # ( can make an informed decision about the proposal. )
   
   [TIP]:  # ( Artwork may be attached to the submission and linked as 
necessary. )
   [TIP]:  # ( ASCII artwork can also be included in code blocks, if desired. )
   
   # Advantages and Disadvantages
   
   [NOTE]: # ( Briefly, list the benefits and drawbacks that would be realized 
should )
   [NOTE]: # ( the proposal be accepted for inclusion into Apache CouchDB. )
   
   # Key Changes
   
   [TIP]: # ( If the changes will affect how a user interacts with CouchDB, 
explain. )
   
   ## Applications and Modules affected
   
   [NOTE]: # ( List the OTP applications or functional modules in CouchDB 
affected by the proposal. )
   
   ## HTTP API additions
   
   [NOTE]: # ( Provide *exact* detail on each new API endpoint, including: )
   [NOTE]: # (   HTTP methods [HEAD, GET, PUT, POST, DELETE, etc.] )
   [NOTE]: # (   Synopsis of functionality )
   [NOTE]: # (   Headers and parameters accepted )
   [NOTE]: # (   JSON in [if a PUT or POST type] )
   [NOTE]: # (   JSON out )
   [NOTE]: # (   Valid status codes and their defintions )
   [NOTE]: # (   A proposed Request and Response block )
   
   ## HTTP API deprecations
   
   [NOTE]: # ( Provide *exact* detail on the API endpoints to be deprecated. )
   [NOTE]: # ( If these endpoints are replaced by new endpoints, list those as 
well. )
   [NOTE]: # ( State the proposed version in which the deprecation and removal 
will occur. )
   
   # Security Considerations
   
   [NOTE]: # ( Include any impact to the security of CouchDB here. )
   
   # References
   
   [TIP]:  # ( Include any references to CouchDB documentation, mailing list 
discussion, )
   [TIP]:  # ( external standards or other links here. )
   
   # Acknowledgements
   
   [TIP]:  # ( Who helped you write this RFC? )
   

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


With regards,
Apache Git Services

Reply via email to