Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.242 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=AJIV/do2X9amnfMIuu9VP8wu7owNVxgTDgQJQjaJEA9wgY+Ej27JyFiHXrHh6MiF7n
         7UMW96F5yQvn6XHCLOraZ8hPc4/Hb9kKBdCEDANNyjaxJPngsw3ChZ7e/f2aU6LZ6w9k
         KVOnslvzwwcKzzIk9at9bwwEzxB5Gk/6dgNyE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e282921e0902261606m6270d042i479190dfd31d3e47@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56a83cd00902260948x15ce887u4916cedd54959c6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7898CB93-1504-40B6-8EB8-C4C816189EB8@apache.org>
	 <d72c12bb0902261404r7d77eaabj9e09b7ba0356038d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <73AF9D27-6895-4E0D-96E0-335C02B94892@gmail.com>
	 <d72c12bb0902261441w46edd0ccvdb6c5c2bc57d8372@mail.gmail.com>
	 <d72c12bb0902261556m54712141ha13ea84af729b516@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e282921e0902261606m6270d042i479190dfd31d3e47@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:26:16 -0500
Message-ID: <e2111bbb0902261626x5486ba83qf03851f56c93358c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: CouchDB and clustering
From: Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Chris Anderson <jchris@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Ben Browning <ben324@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think I've captured, at least at a high-level, the general consensus
>> on partitioning here:
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Partitioning_proposal
>>
>
> This looks great to me, thanks for capturing it here! The actual
> hashing of docids and merging of view queries will probably not be the
> hard part. I expect the hard part to be configuration and management
> of nodes across machines, as well as communication between nodes.
>
> There has been some work to make CouchDB more OTP-like (having trouble
> finding links...) and I think doing that first could make the rest of
> this job much easier.
>
> Thinking we should move this conversation to dev@ to ensure we get the
> right people's attention. ('scuse the cross-post.)
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Anderson
> http://jchris.mfdz.com
>

I'm starting to believe that becoming more OTP compliant is going to
be the most (immediately) important aspect of supporting CouchDB nodes
that span physical hosts.

By getting the core bits of functionality separated into OTP
modules/apps/units/appropriate-term replacing bits of CouchDB
functionality becomes *alot* easier.

I think a good place for figuring out how to make the different bits
work would be to sit down and figure out a modular split for CouchDB
and then make those our OTP bits. Then with a configurable setup,
having a plugin that replaces the entire storage system (with say, a
distributed btree implementation) would be as easy as changing an INI
setting.

HTH,
Paul Davis