couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Damien Katz <>
Subject Re: delayed_commits false
Date Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:50:06 GMT

On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Robert Newson <> wrote:
>> I had started a page to capture the nuances of these settings at
>> but never finished
>> it. It's possible some of the prose could be reshaped into a concise
>> summary of the difficult balancing act we're attempting here.
>> For what it's worth, I'd prefer to keep this setting as-is for 1.0.
>> Having several 'durability profiles' to choose from would be very
>> neat, though, and displaying the current profile prominently in Futon
>> should convey the message far better than docs or wiki. Consider how
>> often the 'admin party' text gets people thinking about locking down
>> their server...
>> B.
> I dislike to have too much options though.
> @damien
> I don't understand this "keep it for 1.0" mantra. Since it's more a
> "philosophical" change than a technical one, I would prefer that
> change on 1.0 whatever this number means. How do people  use CouchDB
> in production ? Is delayed_commit turned off most of the time ?

I don't know the answer to this, but we've shipped version 0.8, 0.9, 0.10 and 0.11 with the
current default.

> About the use on laptop and co, laptops are likely less stable than
> server machines, and we tend to shutdown them more often too. With
> delayed_commit=True, when someone shutdown his laptop and forget to
> apply delayed commit (and most of the time, if we don't automatize
> that, I bet he will), data in memory will be lost.

I don't recall any real world complaints caused by the 1 sec delay where people were losing
data. The one time we turned it off in trunk, there were complaints about the slowness and
how unusable it was. I personally had to always turn it on for the servers to be usable. 

> As a user of openbsd, one of the reasons I use this system (except
> its simplicity) is that it is secured by default on the contrary most
> linuxes/bsds aren't. Most of the openbsd users know that security will
> impact performances. I think I would prefer to have a completly safe
> couchdb even if performances decreased.

You have that option already.


> - benoit.

View raw message