incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Bryan <danbr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How to setup an master - slave enviroment
Date Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:57:21 GMT
By the way, I didn't mean to be dismissive of the desire for a master-slave
setup - if someone wants to do that with Couch, or they have a good reason
to need it, good luck to them. But the mechanism you used to create this
limitation - whether it be nginx redirects, putting the master at a
different subdomain or path, having different user access control on the
master and the slaves, etc. - depends upon the actual reasons for wanting a
master-slave setup. The only reason I can really think of is if you want
absolute consistency rather than eventual consistency - which you can't
guarantee anyway because of the way MVCC works even on a single Couch
instance.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Hendrik Jan van Meerveld
<haaiee@gmail.com>wrote:

> Can you setup Nginx to not accept PUT request on the slaves?
>
> Something like this:
>
>  #replication requests will stop here
>  location ^~/_replicate {
>      proxy_pass http://localhost:5984;
>      proxy_redirect off;
>      proxy_set_header Host $host;
>      proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
>      proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;
>  }
>
>  #for everything not-replication do not allow PUT requests
>  if ($request_method !~ ^(GET|HEAD)$) {
>      return 444;
>  }
>
> Regards,
> H
>
>
>
> On 12 January 2012 17:59, Mark Hahn <mark@hahnca.com> wrote:
>
> > There is nothing in the meaning of "master" that implies rolling the
> master
> > function to another server.  Doing so will require extra development
> > effort.  Using couchdb as masterless saves you from having to do that.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Erm, unless you are speaking another language where 'single point of
> > > failure' is a semantically correct sentence that coincides with the
> > > English one I'm familiar with, the point of having a slave is so you
> > > can fail over to it if the master fails, thereby removing the 'single
> > > point of failure' (Traditional Definition) of the master.
> > >
> > > /sarcasm
> > >
> > > B. :)
> > >
> > > On 12 January 2012 16:40, Mark Hahn <mark@hahnca.com> wrote:
> > > >>  Master/Slave is a fine setup, why not? :)
> > > >
> > > > Single point of failure.
> > >
> >
>

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