From user-return-3805-apmail-couchdb-user-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Mon Mar 02 23:14:11 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 37701 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2009 23:14:11 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Mar 2009 23:14:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 53634 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2009 23:14:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-user-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 53598 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2009 23:14:09 -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 53587 invoked by uid 99); 2 Mar 2009 23:14:09 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:14:09 -0800 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 antony.blakey@gmail.com designates 209.85.142.190 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.142.190] (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.190) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:13:59 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a1so2871816tib.3 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:13:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:x-mailer; bh=9+k8PQTTCFVTwuEo4ZLWBCFSoTptkzOJTkoER5D48II=; b=P2fmGlowF2wJJr5HmM2DWphZCTtnngqgGSnfFGoO/1uAQesdC94Xahx+O5GSkKGaN1 m05O4dBax0vsC1FJY+hjar/SkjdGyfK2RNJ+bEzGRTepOu6IIREy6Ms/7LdLjlgzOanF P4sSplLVYNRkuSF6cV+DhN/Ak1U5ohJDIxd4M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; b=auAppRWy5bGxGE50wCXpOhdkDC28gVwa80Rc0F8Y7+I93tUsrEaZKHXNW8KSULL96P UGOYtyHELWY8ynbekAhRlInYai/kxJxp5z1YRbaVZhu4jnP8qVXmB7YNr0HeqUcMdNQ9 fZ3KWQQrRSaxTYp5pRZ4GNgU70cEnMjlX8+A4= Received: by 10.110.53.19 with SMTP id b19mr7191709tia.12.1236035587391; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.0.16? (ppp121-45-202-232.lns10.adl2.internode.on.net [121.45.202.232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm2662061tim.24.2009.03.02.15.13.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:13:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4FDAE170-5965-4B99-B2B1-207064ECB6C0@gmail.com> From: Antony Blakey To: user@couchdb.apache.org In-Reply-To: <64a10fff0903021456v1bca1f16y8db2538a7911bd40@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Why sequential document ids? [was: Re: What's the speed(performance) of couchdb?] Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:43:02 +1030 References: <60D10DCD-C1F7-4663-B6DF-60DD4641672C@apache.org> <4703936A-A1E8-46C0-B2F4-0DA9FD5D5B9A@apache.org> <8A824EA9-82FA-482C-BF87-691D522C4FC3@cisco.com> <94A51F43-404D-4728-B5B6-8B502EC07E24@apache.org> <1DCF2549-61AB-43EB-8240-519748E0E667@gmail.com> <64a10fff0903021456v1bca1f16y8db2538a7911bd40@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 03/03/2009, at 9:26 AM, Dean Landolt wrote: > I can see the point of replication source, but document origination > source > is different than replication source, isn't it? You are right. However the document origination source is required for a useful version vector, because you can then track which peer has how much of a source's writes. Which is useful if the source disappears. You can then build a distributed picture of the eventual consistency status. > Yes. I guess it's a tradeoff between wanting a distributed overview and wanting global anonymity. Maybe that's a valid configuration option, rather than being policy. Unless a node makes it's identity available in some way other than replication, the source is still anonymous because there's no mapping of node id to source URL (which might change in any case). To identify the node you'd have to find the node, try to replicate from it, and get lucky that the id it provides is the one you're looking for. Antony Blakey -------------------------- CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd Ph: 0438 840 787 Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. -- Albert Schweitzer