Hello Etay, npm did that at one point and they have a couple of articles in their blog that might be of your interest:
http://blog.npmjs.org/post/71267056460/fastly-manta-loggly-and-couchdb-attachments <http://blog.npmjs.org/post/71267056460/fastly-manta-loggly-and-couchdb-attachments> http://blog.npmjs.org/post/75707294465/new-npm-registry-architecture <http://blog.npmjs.org/post/75707294465/new-npm-registry-architecture> They experienced problems with storing a lot of attachments in CouchDB and moved to another solution. Also note this post of Nolan Lawson, point 4: https://pouchdb.com/2014/06/17/12-pro-tips-for-better-code-with-pouchdb.html <https://pouchdb.com/2014/06/17/12-pro-tips-for-better-code-with-pouchdb.html> I especially love the quote of Laurie Voss: "One of the big things that everybody who's spent a lot of time with databases knows is that you should never put your binaries in the database. It's a terrible idea. It always goes wrong. I have never met a database in 15 years of which it is not true, and it's definitely not true of CouchDB. You are taking this thing which is meant to sort and organize data, and you're giving it binary data, which it can neither sort nor organize. It can't do anything with that data, other than get really fat.” My advice: DON’T. Regards, Alexander > On 21. Jun. 2016, at 21:44, Etay Haun <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > Thanks for your answers to my last post. It was very helpful. > > We are developing a distributed file system solution and we would like to > base our solution on CouchDB. > We would like to use CouchDB to store the files as attachments (each > document will include the file and the file meta-data). > We have a few data centers that stores *different* file systems, Although > some of the documents are replicated to other data centers. > We have a few questions regarding possible technical issues. > As mentioned, Part of our possible solution involves using attachments to > store the actual files in couchdb. > 1. We couldn't find any information regarding suggested attachment size. > 2. Is there an issue with storing large attachments? (up to 2GB per file - > although most files will be much smaller - few KB or MB) > 3. We need to replicate some documents between couch instances including > the attachments, Is this okay? > 4. Does CouchDB also stores revisions of attachments? > 5. If so, how can we determine the required storage space for an instance > assuming we know what will be the entire system's size? > Our biggest instance will include 20TB of attachments. > 6. Are there any possible issues with running the instances on Windows 2012 > servers? > Thank you in advance.
