couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Stewart <robstewar...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: CouchDB Partitioning Proposal
Date Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:00:50 GMT
Hi Till,

I was responding to Randall's email here:
*http://tinyurl.com/32u3cu8

*Is it possible to efficiently reply to mailing list archives without
subscribing to the list? There's a lot of traffic on the couchdb list, and,
for now, would prefer to access it via the mailing list archives web
interface.

Does my reply to you make much coherent sense, Randall ?

Rob



> Hey Rob,

> the rest of us is missing the earlier part of the discussion. :D Or
> maybe the reply is broken and I didn't get sorted to the original
> email...

> Btw, if interested in the partitioning, etc. - free free to subscribe
> to the lounge mailinglist:
> http://groups.google.com/group/couchdb-lounge

> Till

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Rob Stewart
<robstewart57@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Randall,
>
> With a response time like that, efficiency is your strong point.
>
>
> First of all, seeing as through there are a number of 'solutions', it's
> clear that there are positives to come from a fully distributed CouchDB
> database. So I am not put off by that.
>
>
> Next, you suggest potential like solution as Cassandra and Dynamo. I'd
tend
> to agree, as these are stable distributed systems. On saying that,
Cassandra
> doesn't use Erlang (as a Java implementation), though it adopted the
> flexible column layout from Google's BigTable. I've also had a look at
> MongoDB, which is a C++ implementation, but with similar goals as CouchDB
> (document-oriented database). They are currently working on database
> partitioning, though it's in its alpha stages, in version 1.5.3. I imagine
> that MongoDB could be a good design guide for CouchDB in the future should
> its sharding implementation matures.
>
>
> In a slightly unrelated note, can I point you to a paper published in
> February, 2010 - Key/Value Datastores Comparison in AppScale. Briefly,
> AppScale is a open source drop-in replacement for Google's App Engine, and
> provides API's to Cloud based web applications (typicall), and at the
> backend that have plugged in their app API's to the API's of 7 distributed
> databases (including Cassandra and MongoDB). What are the chances of
> attaching CouchDB to the AppScale API's ?
>
>
> My final point is Scalaris. (Google 'Reliable Transactional P2P Key/Value
> Store'). Like CouchDB, it is a P2P datastore, implemented in Erlang.
Appears
> to be similar in design and implementation to CouchDB, to me? It uses
Chord#
> to storing and retreiving key/values in nodes. It seemingly has support
for
> Heterogeneous hardware clusters, and it currently uses an in-memory
> disctionary for database stores, though using Mnesia has been suggested.
>
>
> Is that enough, to generate discussion, Randall ?
>
>
>
> Rob Stewart
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message