On 09/29/2010 10:32 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > 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.
WELL... we deleted that form of replication. Replication in drizzle isn't and won't be carried through libdrizzle. > 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
