Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 58010 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2009 20:33:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Sep 2009 20:33:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 14128 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2009 20:33:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 14045 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2009 20:33:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 14035 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2009 20:33:47 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:33:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of janlehnardt@googlemail.com designates 209.85.219.223 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.219.223] (HELO mail-ew0-f223.google.com) (209.85.219.223) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:33:35 +0000 Received: by ewy23 with SMTP id 23so1579482ewy.8 for ; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:33:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to:x-mailer; bh=ePQbn0QpEF9F6LHHg1DQF+QH3NhSPr5Dezoib6DyGgc=; b=St2mW8eFxxKsz1u3HGRUmEM+D0JifXgY/4st6BU+zoTWUFVpBLbg369uubc3clM3mS +qLP+GIljaUfYjWi+Nuib5mFrICVIR9VpDyKILfKHFFOWEERlpuj1ctswEzuBq8s0Apb Mk12m8A01UxE1NOUm5cAaxpzCRRyzzfzJXfbA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=rcMU5Va5t6ULKQLPfzj5NSv8HA2jh2wn/eZRMHK3HsSJor1D3sIH2g+zZ7MbAHL6Bj C/JHZPIr9MAMe3tFTWYWI2qpPTtx7v7gqtWUbgAyDrTFuP9oqujzbJqNvOfLpfWyCEfP TEFLxq6I6MbzqX5wkNoRJeIQtxJ3viTlJQOGY= Received: by 10.216.54.9 with SMTP id h9mr347428wec.173.1252182794388; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.66? (188-220-32-206.zone11.bethere.co.uk [188.220.32.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p37sm6580063gvf.27.2009.09.05.13.33.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1075.2) Subject: Re: comfy couch? From: Jan Lehnardt In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 21:33:12 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <923FC1D3-16CF-41C0-918C-A246EED30EF4@apache.org> References: <47F1032E-FA42-4A56-B1B7-B8C2FE8E5A9A@bzero.se> To: user@couchdb.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1075.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 5 Sep 2009, at 19:34, Chris Anderson wrote: >> Would a full mesh of continuous replication between many nodes pose a >> problem? >> So far I've only tested replication between two nodes. I'll add >> more nodes >> to >> the testbed as I get my hands on more machines. >> >> Is there any difference between push and pull mode replication? > > Pull replication is a little more efficient than push, due to http > pipelining etc. Adam corrected me on that the other day, push replication now can use bulk doc updates and is more efficient again :) Cheers Jan -- http://couch.io