couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kristian Rink <>
Subject playing with couchdb: size / infrastructure questions
Date Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:55:21 GMT

in the process of evaluating alternatives to SQL/RDBMS solutions, I
seem to have ended up with CouchDB for a little longer, seeing that its
document centric approach does rather well reflect our data model
understanding in our current system, way better than the relational
approach we are using so far. This is, generally, what makes things
interesting to us, whereas features like replication aren' of that much

There are, however, two considerable questions before moving any
further, related to the amount and style of how data need to be stored
inside the db:

- In our environment, at the moment we have to handle something next to
  2TB, consisting of both document metadata (at the moment stored in
  the RDBMS) and binary file data (at the moment stored inside a
  centralized file system provided by our application). This amount is
  supposed to at the very least be doubled in the course of the next
  two years, especially concerning file data. I have seen a pretty good
  way of how CouchDB does deal with file data (the attachments approach
  is exactly what we want/need), but I wonder whether there are any
  limitations regarding the amount of (binary) data stored inside a
  CouchDB database? 

- Our current infrastructure runs atop NetApp filers, replicating
  themselves between a production site (active) and a backup site
  (passive). The production site filer so far is the only place for
  storing data in our environment, and it is supposed to be exactly
  like this in near future, so in terms of CouchDB it would be required
  to have at least the database "files" hosted inside a NetApp CIFS
  share. Does CouchDB support / allow for such a setup? 

Both issues, in the end, also could be addressed using a "mixed mode"
solution I guess, keeping metadata inside the CouchDB and hosting files
on the CIFS share as we do by now, but I surely would prefer having all
the data in one place...

Thoughts, anyone?
Thanks in advance and all the best,

View raw message