I'd be interested to read that if you insert the URL too Bob. :) On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Bob Dionne <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > >> > >> > >> > >
