toby.corkindale at strategicdata.com.au
Tue Jul 2 20:50:03 EDT 2013
On 02/07/13 22:51, Sean Cribbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Toby Corkindale
> <toby.corkindale at strategicdata.com.au
> <mailto:toby.corkindale at strategicdata.com.au>> wrote:
> Riak (and Riak CS and Stanchion) all assume some level of competence
> at Erlang. I found Riak was tricky to get running, but had picked up
> enough knowledge of Erlang's strange syntax and foibles from working
> with RabbitMQ.
> This assumption is EXACTLY why we publish our own binary packages. You
> don't need to know Erlang to run Riak, and haven't for years. When you
> become an advanced user, yes, it is helpful, but it is not strictly
> necessary. This is especially true of CS, and I'd much rather get the
> bottom of Guy's problem than quibble about how hard Riak is to use
> "because Erlang".
Oh, no, I feel you've misunderstood me slightly. I'm not blaming all
difficulties upon Erlang - however the way Erlang is used does bring
some added complexities to the party that can and will confuse people.
In particular, using Erlang syntax for the configuration file, and
outputting errors in the same way.
The configuration format *is* hard to understand, and it's easy to break
it while making what should be simple changes.
Have a look at a typical error thrown by Riak or Riak CS -- it's an
extremely dense Erlang stack trace.
Erlang's clustering requires open networking, or more advanced
configuration if using host firewall.
Don't misunderstand me -- I kinda like Erlang and have seen some great
open source products built upon it.
> We are working on exactly these problems, but they are difficult to get
> right. Any suggestions on config syntaxes that work well for other
> products are appreciated. For now we're looking at a format that
> resembles sysctl.
Another common one is the Apache-style, eg.
More information about the riak-users