Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 68385 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2010 22:58:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2010 22:58:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 38946 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2010 22:58:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 38843 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2010 22:58:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 38835 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jul 2010 22:58:47 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:58:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of volker.mische@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.52] (HELO mail-fx0-f52.google.com) (209.85.161.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:58:39 +0000 Received: by fxm8 with SMTP id 8so8396522fxm.11 for ; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:58:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sbrcjzzqSXeIGpQEQ7J8thnjq9rxKoHsRzVxUC+NN+E=; b=Suya5YGbv46dG+JsT6fNob3KVR8mEkD35zTmGDzuMIfUFOYQeKyh0SKxUoKpp4VO8f ezwqwkwxS/teCiMnXSUdlWXjdroEY7MJrLrH3FbOGWZ5eL/ojMms3h6639QFk5x/a+oN uBmxSpF9Ivvz+t4jBwt5L5LZDtBxeVEZ/iJAo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Aabo1q2TKO/Ck1u+vYVD+uJNIvqI1b+0zHjijkWfImdEJdcUzvxSuJthcE8I6oldve uDRhBCZScSDYQc9ib9VtjLWZC3QacuIVdna0uyTAyqBqNNMdkwjfK1uw1hq2Jol755jw eBH9lVRdT3JFQRKRnxT6XbvH4nHmTyKLzZ/t0= Received: by 10.223.103.141 with SMTP id k13mr5051186fao.16.1278457098653; Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:58:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (dslb-084-056-036-171.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.56.36.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 12sm12999652fav.3.2010.07.06.15.58.16 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C33B509.5070403@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:58:17 +0200 From: Volker Mische User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@couchdb.apache.org CC: Mikeal Rogers , Damien Katz Subject: Re: delayed_commits false References: <4C31FF1A.30002@gmail.com> <4C33B24E.8050109@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I have to admit that the point, that the main audience of a tarball are developers is a good one. Perhaps people that do binary distributions of CouchDB (like all the linux distros) could be encouraged to turn it to false (though I have no idea what their general policy about changing defaults is). Cheers, Volker On 07.07.2010 00:52, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > I think there is a balance that we can find here between user experience and > durability. > > I think the biggest question for me is, who is the primary target of the > tarball download? > > If it's developers, I think we should leave it on. > > If it's people who are going to put it up, vanilla, in to production, we > should turn them off. > > I know that I would certainly advocate keeping them off in the CouchDBX > build. > > -Mikeal > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Volker Mischewrote: > >> On 07.07.2010 00:06, Damien Katz wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 5, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Volker Mische wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> delayed_commits were enabled to have better performance especially for >>>> single writers. The price you pay for is that you potentially lose up to one >>>> second of writes in case of a crash. >>>> >>>> Such a setting makes sense, though in my opinion it shouldn't be enabled >>>> by default. I expect* that people running into performance issues at least >>>> take a look at the README or a FAQ section somewhere. There the >>>> delayed_commit setting could be pointed out. >>>> >>>> I'd like to be able to say that on a vanilla CouchDB it's hard to lose >>>> data, but I can't atm. I'm also well aware that there will be plenty of >>>> performance tests when 1.0 is released and people will complain (if >>>> delayed_commits would be set to false by default) that it is horrible slow. >>>> Though safety of the data is more important for me. >>>> >>>> If the only reason why delayed_commits is true by default are the >>>> performance tests of some noobs, I really don't think it's a price worth >>>> paying. >>>> >>>> *I know that in reality people don't >>>> >>>> I would like to see delayed_commits=false for 1.0 >>>> >>> >>> Last year we turned off delayed commits by default. We got lots of >>> complaints, the performance impact was too great. So we switched it back. We >>> aren't the first storage engine to go around on this. For example, Apple's >>> core data switched to using full fsyncs for each write in 10.4, but then >>> switched it back for 10.5: >>> >>> >>> http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CoreData/Articles/cdPersistentStores.html >>> >>> "Important: The default behaviors in Mac OS X v10.4 an 10.5 are different. >>> In Mac OS X v10.4, SQLite uses FULL_FSYNC by default; in Mac OS X v10.5 it >>> does not." >>> >>> Anyway, we can improve the documentation warning's, etc, but we should >>> stay with the current defaults. >>> >>> -Damien >>> >>> >> As 1.0 is approaching fast, I think this discussion is pretty important. >> Especially this thread showed that there are people that prefer setting >> delayed_commits to false. Although sometimes someone has to make the last >> call, and there is probably no one better than the creator of the project, I >> think it this case the decision should be made by more people. >> >> For *me personally* the authority of Apache CouchDB are the committers. I >> would love to see them vote on this topic (being it public or private >> doesn't matter). >> >> Cheers, >> Volker >> >