There used to be an advantage to using PULL but that's no longer the case.
However PULL replications are a bit more stable when attachments are involved, so I'd recommend them over PUSH. I've described the problem here[1] in BigCouch if you're interested in the details. On Oct 7, 2012, at 5:04 AM, Nick North <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm also interested in whether there is a preference for push or pull with > CouchDb 1.2. I have a full-mesh replication setup using pull replication, > but have no idea whether push might be better in some way. Is there a > replication guru out there who could enlighten us? > Nick > On 4 October 2012 17:48, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 4 October 2012 17:04, Steve Koppelman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Assuming a hubless (i.e. not master-slave) set of 4 couchdb 1.2.0 >>> servers behind a load balancer, is there a recommended best-practice >>> for setting up the replication relationships? I'm most interested in: >>> >>> * Assuming the _replicator document is on one of the two nodes in a >>> relationship, is there a preference for push vs. pull replication >>> relationships? I seem to recall pull as being regarded as more >>> reliable than push through 1.1.1. >> >> Hope somebody else comments on this, I'm interested to know if this >> still makes a difference. >> >> >>
