On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Eliezer Croitoru <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/11/2013 3:10 PM, Robert Klemme wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Eliezer Croitoru <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> So I am wondering about other DB solutions that will not use too much >>> storage space will be fast and can scale if needed. >> >> >> Scale in what direction? Database size, requests per second, multiple >> concurrent clients, multiple physical nodes the DB is stored on...?
> The scale is in couple directions: > - multiple physical nodes the main DB stored on. > - Database size > - requests per second > - master and secondary updates\replication Well, less dimensions would be too easy, wouldn't it? :-) > For now one machine will host the DB while it gets updates from couple > sources such as human and other auto-testing tools. > This will be a dedicated DB machine while there are others servers which > gets updates from the master DB when needed. > The problem is that the updates are live and should be replicated with the > smallest delay possible. I don't have experience with CouchDB performance but given your list I would include it in your benchmarking activities. Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/ -- [email protected] | https://groups.google.com/d/forum/ruby-talk-google?hl=en
