Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of north.n@gmail.com designates
 209.85.223.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAL+Y1nup+xyUWiOQZX55pR2z0eDC6ORgG3=m77M=UdZSJrJc6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAH7dtSFvVk_ORc5TRACVdy21aop4UOsKtrC88ip-EQcXcmJC3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL+Y1nup+xyUWiOQZX55pR2z0eDC6ORgG3=m77M=UdZSJrJc6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 10:04:38 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAGHTdUWF=ys-1i-CDx4adWVDJyzc8GK7Uk5d65AyUfwQ2nCsFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Simple load-balancing replication best practices
From: Nick North <north.n@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93407490eefc604cb7465c9

--14dae93407490eefc604cb7465c9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I'm also interested in whether there is a preference for push or pull with
CouchDb 1.2. I have a full-mesh replication setup using pull replication,
but have no idea whether push might be better in some way. Is there a
replication guru out there who could enlighten us?
Nick
On 4 October 2012 17:48, Dave Cottlehuber <dch@jsonified.com> wrote:

> On 4 October 2012 17:04, Steve Koppelman <steve.koppelman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Assuming a hubless (i.e. not master-slave) set of 4 couchdb 1.2.0
> > servers behind a load balancer, is there a recommended best-practice
> > for setting up the replication relationships? I'm most interested in:
> >
> > * Assuming the _replicator document is on one of the two nodes in a
> > relationship, is there a preference for push vs. pull replication
> > relationships? I seem to recall pull as being regarded as more
> > reliable than push through 1.1.1.
>
> Hope somebody else comments on this, I'm interested to know if this
> still makes a difference.
>
>
>

--14dae93407490eefc604cb7465c9--