Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.246 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=L84WEBPvE0h3ST74JLbZa0dkguO8c+rz3Faugq6hPZI6TmeEPx6v5aO97JUaEmHt2P
         4c/g7IfBC5YyqDSCvXvXvyO35qF31SsTR/HVTbMzV6sXk1rWXIoDFAoskLmM7tIhZU/4
         j0F0KYgN6XvU4cMTkBg3IZZgnFoocrD88cVWM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d45085aa0903200203t4588699dt45a74ac3e340d542@mail.gmail.com>
References: <41139fcb0903192334n6028e604v24d4d31cae735191@mail.gmail.com>
	 <gpvf7s$sha$1@ger.gmane.org>
	 <e2111bbb0903200149v7b225c73j9721171b42d1f0c9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <d45085aa0903200203t4588699dt45a74ac3e340d542@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:17:10 -0400
Message-ID: <e2111bbb0903200217o7d0a96bu3fe51c35d2ce5bda@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: using mutliple cores for view computation
From: Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Cedric Vivier <cedricv@neonux.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> A slight clarification, JS itself is multi-threaded. Couchjs is just
>> not implemented as a threaded view server. I've contemplated giving
>> view servers the ability to exectute multiple jobs simultaneously but
>> there are a couple of things that make it not a priority.
>
>
> I also think keeping view servers as simple as possible makes sense.
> Otoh is it possible to make CouchDb evenly distribute jobs to several
> spawned couchjs view server instances?

Not yet. The idea has been floated, but the disk IO caveat lurks there
like a menacing monster.

> (and the OS scheduler would make sure that the different view server
> processes ends up running on different cores I guess... though of course the
> 'bottleneck' might be the I/O anyways)
>
> Regards,
>