On Sep 29, 2010, at 2:58 AM, Andrew Hutchings wrote: > Hi guys, > > OK, so I am cleaning up a bunch of options on the client apps and realise > that all the client apps have a compression protocol option but libdrizzle > doesn't implement the compression protocol. So do we: > > 1. Add compression to libdrizzle > or > 2. Remove the (currently dead) option from the client apps. > > I guess my argument for 1 is to save bandwidth on networks with busy drizzle > servers (push more data down a pipe). Not only for remote networks but I am > guessing in a cloud scenario network saturation could be possible. This > should help accelerate remote backup scenarios using drizzledump for example. >
I'd vote to add the compression in. Its especially important for replication. Offsite replication slaves may be in offices on ADSL lines or on a cloud host somewhere. It should be fairly easy, and it can actually be incredibly useful for interactive sessions, even on a moderately fast connection. The point at which compression improves, rather than hurts latency is probably about 30ms.. so unless you're on the LAN with your db server, its a nice option to have. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
