couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Replicating with two CouchDBs that share the same URL
Date Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:52:09 GMT

The replicator searches for a checkpoint document on source and target when it starts. This
document identifies the update_seq that the previous replication had reached. The checkpoint
document's id is derived from the source hostname:port and target hostname:port (plus some
other properties).

B.


On 11 Aug 2012, at 14:38, Ladislav Thon wrote:

> Friendly ping? :-)
> 
> LT
> 
> 2012/6/27 Ladislav Thon <ladicek@gmail.com>
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> we're using CouchDB (version 1.1.1 currently, but planning to upgrade to
>> 1.2.0) because of its multi-master replication. The replication topology is
>> a simple star -- single central server and a number of clients that
>> replicate both from and to the central server. Writes are (almost) always
>> done on the clients.
>> 
>> Now for high availability, the central server isn't actually a single
>> machine, but two machines (and therefore two couches) whose IP addresses
>> are mapped to the same domain name (DNS round robin). These two couches
>> also replicate with each other. The clients don't know about this, they
>> always replicate from and to https://central.couch:6984/database.
>> 
>> This might not be the best architecture for HA and we would be able to
>> change it, but I'd still love to get an answer to this question: is CouchDB
>> able to cope with this? How does it know that it replicates with the same
>> couch it replicated with before (so that it only has to replay changes) and
>> how does it recognize that it replicates with a different couch than before
>> (and has to copy the whole database)?
>> 
>> I know that it was already proposed several times to add an UUID to
>> CouchDB server/database, which would solve this issue, and I also know that
>> it's very easy to end up with duplicates, which renders universallly
>> unique identifiers ... not so *unique* (i.e. useless).
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> Also, I have a question about replication monitoring. Are there some best
>> practices for monitoring whether the replication is working? I can of
>> course read the corresponding document in the _replicator database and look
>> at the _replication_state field, but this will only tell me that the
>> replication is *running* -- and I want to know that it's actually *working
>> *. For now, we are using a pretty naive approach: 1. Every 10 minutes,
>> write a document with current date and time to the central couch. 2.
>> Periodically check on all clients (we have them under control) that the
>> document isn't too old. Is there a better approach?
>> 
>> Thanks for your opinions!
>> 
>> LT
>> 


Mime
View raw message