From their wiki: "The replication is an incremental one way process involving two databases (a source and a destination). The aim of the replication is that at the end of the process, all active documents on the source database are also in the destination database and all documents that were deleted in the source databases are also deleted (if exists) on the destination database."
CouchDB =! Cassandra for replication. From everything I've seen it behaves much more like mysql replication than anything else. If anything they tested replication. Also they barely tuned Cassandra from those slides so I wonder if compactions etc bit them. Finally, there are some very high profile people using Cassandra on Amazon EC2. My understanding is that disk IO is the biggest limitation here. My 2 cents. Best, michael On 10/1/12 8:05 AM, "Andy Cobley" <acob...@computing.dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >There are some interesting results in the benchmarks below: > >http://www.slideshare.net/renatko/couchbase-performance-benchmarking > >Without starting a flame war etc, I'm interested if these results should >be considered "Fair and Balanced" or if the methodology is flawed in some >way ? (for instance is the use of Amazon EC2 sensible for Cassandra >deployment) ? > >Andy > > > >The University of Dundee is a Scottish Registered Charity, No. SC015096. > > 'Like' us on Facebook for exclusive content and other resources on all Barracuda Networks solutions. Visit http://barracudanetworks.com/facebook
