replicate is not intended to be faster or in any respect more performant than
the builtin replicator. it's not slow, but it's simply not a goal of the
project to be faster than the builtin replicator.
my main issue with the builtin replicator has been opaqueness. when replication
failures occur
MIkeal's is easy to test: npm install replicate && replicate sourceurl
destinationurl
it's probably slower than the current stable release, but more reliable. the
new replicator in trunk is apparently the most optimal solution, but it's
not released in a stable version yet
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at
Anyone done any benchmarking on @mikeal's replicate vs. the built-in
replicator? For blitz.io, we have east/west continuous replication (on
AWS) and I'm frequently seeing slow-downs and replication stalls (even
during periods of inactivity). Restarting CouchDB will make it quickly
catch up and then
