couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Kocoloski <>
Subject Re: CouchDB and future
Date Mon, 08 Jul 2019 18:54:23 GMT
So I realize this is maybe hijacking the thread a bit, but I’d like to learn more about any
issues that make CouchDB 2.3.1 more difficult to manage than CouchDB 1.x. Certainly I get
the increased overhead associated with a replicated, sharded cluster, but if you configure
a modern CouchDB server to behave like 1.x by disabling clustering (i.e., setting Q=N=1) —
do you still find that we’ve regressed with respect to stability and maintenance overhead?
That’s not my personal experience, but if there are regressions I’d like to get them documented
and addressed if possible.


> On Jul 8, 2019, at 2:44 PM, Robert Newson <> wrote:
> Hi,
> CouchDB 1.x is no longer supported, even for security updates. 
> CouchDB 4.0, the one with foundationdb, will reinstate a few couchdb 1.x semantics, particularly
in the _changes response. 
> B. 
>> On 8 Jul 2019, at 16:24, Chintan Mishra <> wrote:
>> Interesting. I started using CouchDB since 2.0+. So, I am not aware of the benefits
of the older versions. I will look into those releases. However, it appears that they won't
be maintained in the future.
>> I couldn't agree more about PouchDB for Web.
>> On 08/07/19 8:33 PM, ermouth wrote:
>> CouchDB as it is now will be a poor fit for embedded systems/IoTs.
>>> This is too bold and broad, sorry. Indeed, 2.x is poor fit, because it
>>> demands regular if not daily maintenance and has substantial amount of
>>> issues. With no doubts FDB-based release will have even more problems, not
>>> because of FDB or IoT by itself, but because any re-architectured solution
>>> is full of issues and not yet covered corner cases.
>>> However, 1.x is ok for some IoT scenaria, esp if you use Erlang for
>>> CPU-intensive query server functions. Latest 1.x releases have very good
>>> balance in terms of reliability/speed, and require no additional SW (except
>>> probably nginx) – which is especially valuable.
>>> Having 1.x CouchDB installed on devices, which are physically remote from
>>> service is reasonable choice: Couch 1.x is famous for it’s ability to work
>>> without requiring administrative intervention for years. Couch ability to
>>> receive QS functions updates using regular replication is invaluable for
>>> long-running distributed IoT projects.
>>> As for Pouch – it’s a wonderful solution for browsers, however it can be
>>> easily knocked out when acts as a server.
>>> Best regards,
>>> ermouth

View raw message