I'll second that. It didn't work out well for us. It's probably OK for small, plain text documents. But it didn't work too well with large media files. ᐧ
--------------------------- www.maf.org/rhoads www.ontherhoads.org On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Alexander Harm <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >
