couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Shepelev <temo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: FW: CouchDB shared hosting
Date Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:08:56 GMT
So you're not giving each user separate IP address?

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Stream Service || Mark
Scholten<mark@streamservice.nl> wrote:
> Please note:
> Using multiple IP addresses just because it is easy for users isn't a real option. If
they need to be able to connect to it from another location it would give a problem (only
1 "public" IP/server, unless we work with SSL certificates) is allowed by RIPE for as far
as I know. With IPv6 this is of course not a problem.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Shepelev [mailto:temotor@gmail.com]
> Sent: woensdag 8 juli 2009 13:54
> To: user@couchdb.apache.org
> Subject: Re: FW: CouchDB shared hosting
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Noah Slater<nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 01:26:07PM +0400, Sergey Shepelev wrote:
>>> > He clearly means programmatic access, instead of via a GUI interface. If
you
>>> > had spent any time administrating a shared access computer system, you would
>>> > realise how important this question is.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Script changing http server config and making it reload config is a
>>> programmatic access. I had spent quite time administering frontend http server
>>> and that's why i'm talking about such scripts.
>>
>> I'm sure, but your original reply was quite flippant:
>>
>>> In fact, there is no such thing in the world, that can't be done "with
>>> commands, automatically".
>>
>> Without a lot of experience, it is easy to imagine that there are some things in
>> CouchDB that cannot be done programmatically. I know that for one of the Java
>> based companies I'm involved in, a lot of our back-end systems require complex
>> GUIs to change configuration settings - which is a total nightmare.
>
> Sorry for trolling, but overcomplex systems with GUI configurators are
> so typical in Java world, sure you should expect a nightmare. :)
>
>>
>>> Because it's the same as if CouchDB would run one database per instance. You
>>> just run another thin instance for another database and everything's fine.
>>> Multiplexing databases into one instance only makes sense (in my opinion) if
>>> we have really thousand of clients per one box and everyone occasionally uses
>>> their databases. In that case even lightest instances would fill up memory.
>>> Moderate database per box distribution solves this problem.
>>
>> Each CouchDB server needs to live on a different port, and this sounds
>> problematic if you're offering CouchDB instances to paying customers who expect
>> them all to live on the same port. You could do some complex proxy setup, but
>> that doesn't sound trivial to automate.
>
> Or, on different ip address which doesn't sound that problematic. Is it?
>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message