Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C9E4EC31 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:28:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 31078 invoked by uid 500); 17 Jan 2013 12:28:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 30468 invoked by uid 500); 17 Jan 2013 12:28:07 -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 30446 invoked by uid 99); 17 Jan 2013 12:28:06 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:28:06 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of kxepal@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.169] (HELO mail-wi0-f169.google.com) (209.85.212.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:28:00 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hq12so4542448wib.2 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 04:27:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=tjwyH7mNcdGMPF9IiUMYkdvUj+6nJy8H+pkHbYqY1Kg=; b=PIzJlr9MiPR9q9v7li50vnNY5xgSLXuCdiy5STdEJ2Tmk2rVltYqtyRxD7B8+Bycsv kbMEZbeKCu++nA38r0mHkqJu2eLESoZST0Il5ZHLmkcACXNmvFJ004Mx0lLSRMouuvyu s8haZ0suMlJOx6Y4z/u9idiJalSkj6G3M4hppywWUzwgFSru5CW8Sax4tvQOTuDPIgSY a0D5O7c9MPn91njC/ITf3/nwwnWj3hKIspDzALrax7rbvkY2GIolwZ9YTFNmhmB3pVBN YDXFErNB3fqy4HHdDLOQ3r75GAmfxtyZ7uHcHpxvxChnzXFOweuaPhbeTnerd9WDEPeO +tbw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.172.228 with SMTP id bf4mr8074428wjc.38.1358425660296; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 04:27:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.86.225 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 04:27:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:27:40 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: general question about couch performance From: Alexander Shorin To: user@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi Mark! Have you tried to tweak httpd options? In local.ini there is their definition: [httpd] ; Options for the MochiWeb HTTP server. ;server_options = [{backlog, 128}, {acceptor_pool_size, 16}] ; For more socket options, consult Erlang's module 'inet' man page. ;socket_options = [{recbuf, 262144}, {sndbuf, 262144}, {nodelay, true}] For example, disabling Nagle algorithm through {nodelay,true} socket option may dramatically change rps value[1]. That is about network operations. For disk one there is delayed_commits option, but it requires to suffer data durability for some speed and actually it's not recommended to keep them him with true value. [1]: http://code.google.com/p/couchdb-python/issues/detail?id=193#c22 -- ,,,^..^,,, On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Mark Hahn wrote: > My couchdb is seeing a typical request rate of about 100/sec when it is > maxed out. This is typically 10 reads/write. This is disappointing. I > was hoping to 3 to 5 ms per op, not 10 ms. What performance numbers are > others seeing? > > I have 35 views with only 50 to 100 entries per view. My db is less than a > gigabyte with a few thousand active docs. > > I'm running on a medium ec2 instance with ephemeral disk. I assume I am IO > bound as the cpu is not maxing out. > > How much worse would this get if the db also had to handle replication > between multiple servers?