I would prefer to leave it like it's now: set to true by default. a+
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Damien Katz <dam...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I had started a page to capture the nuances of these settings at > >> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Durability_Matrix but never finished > >> it. It's possible some of the prose could be reshaped into a concise > >> summary of the difficult balancing act we're attempting here. > >> > >> For what it's worth, I'd prefer to keep this setting as-is for 1.0. > >> Having several 'durability profiles' to choose from would be very > >> neat, though, and displaying the current profile prominently in Futon > >> should convey the message far better than docs or wiki. Consider how > >> often the 'admin party' text gets people thinking about locking down > >> their server... > >> > >> B. > >> > > I dislike to have too much options though. > > > > @damien > > I don't understand this "keep it for 1.0" mantra. Since it's more a > > "philosophical" change than a technical one, I would prefer that > > change on 1.0 whatever this number means. How do people use CouchDB > > in production ? Is delayed_commit turned off most of the time ? > > I don't know the answer to this, but we've shipped version 0.8, 0.9, 0.10 > and 0.11 with the current default. > > > > > About the use on laptop and co, laptops are likely less stable than > > server machines, and we tend to shutdown them more often too. With > > delayed_commit=True, when someone shutdown his laptop and forget to > > apply delayed commit (and most of the time, if we don't automatize > > that, I bet he will), data in memory will be lost. > > I don't recall any real world complaints caused by the 1 sec delay where > people were losing data. The one time we turned it off in trunk, there were > complaints about the slowness and how unusable it was. I personally had to > always turn it on for the servers to be usable. > > > > > As a user of openbsd, one of the reasons I use this system (except > > its simplicity) is that it is secured by default on the contrary most > > linuxes/bsds aren't. Most of the openbsd users know that security will > > impact performances. I think I would prefer to have a completly safe > > couchdb even if performances decreased. > > > > You have that option already. > > -Damien > > > > > - benoit. > > -- Filipe David Manana, fdman...@apache.org "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
