incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vasili Batareykin <john...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: perfomance?
Date Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:13:32 GMT
> I have measured the difference between serving static files from
> apache2 vs. attachments from couchdb. It's always faster to do so via
> apache2, and, on average, couchdb was 2-4 times slower at serving the
> same data as apache2.
>

in my case nginx vs couchdb 10x slowdown. on static files.


>
> This doesn't surprise me. Attachments are interleaved in chunks so
> that concurrent writers do not block each others progress (since only
> one process can append to a file at a time). So reading a file from
> couchdb involves seeking to those chunks (and they're small, 4k or
> less) and then sending them. As Randall points out, apache2 can just
> call sendfile().
>

couchdb eats CPU not io. on small (two attachments, 800kb file size on disk)
db.
i don't know about real work(#/sec) with 50k+ files and 20Gb size of pics
(80Gb in db?)

can i change size of this chunk? to 32,64kb or 128? yes i know about
overhead on disk.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message