> I have measured the difference between serving static files from > apache2 vs. attachments from couchdb. It's always faster to do so via > apache2, and, on average, couchdb was 2-4 times slower at serving the > same data as apache2. >
in my case nginx vs couchdb 10x slowdown. on static files. > > This doesn't surprise me. Attachments are interleaved in chunks so > that concurrent writers do not block each others progress (since only > one process can append to a file at a time). So reading a file from > couchdb involves seeking to those chunks (and they're small, 4k or > less) and then sending them. As Randall points out, apache2 can just > call sendfile(). > couchdb eats CPU not io. on small (two attachments, 800kb file size on disk) db. i don't know about real work(#/sec) with 50k+ files and 20Gb size of pics (80Gb in db?) can i change size of this chunk? to 32,64kb or 128? yes i know about overhead on disk.
