I have two couch instances in two different geographic locations (say A and B). I have two options to do bidirectional continuous replication.
A.local -> B B.local -> A or A <- B.local B <- A.local The difference really, I think, is how the _changes feed works. In the first instance, the replication process on A (conceptually) monitors the local _changes feed and pushes data up to B (a request + a response for each change), while in the second case, the replication process monitors the _changes feed on B (across a network) and makes local changes. My gut tells me the second case will be better for performance since the TCP connection (for the _changes feed) from A to B persists and the docs are sent one way without making a request (and hence less data transmitted per change). Is my hypothesis correct? I haven't yet looked at the packets to understand the differences between the two scenarios. But maybe someone else has already. Thanks, K. --- http://twitter.com/pcapr http://www.pcapr.net http://labs.mudynamics.com
