Riak-CS-Control

Guy Morton Guy.Morton at bksv.com
Tue Jul 2 21:32:14 EDT 2013


The issue I have is, I think, network/IP config related.

I am totally confused as to HOW each app should be configured. Documentation (eg http://docs.basho.com/riak/latest/cookbooks/Basic-Cluster-Setup/) says configure everything with the IP of the machine the app is running on, but when I do that nothing starts. The only way I can configure it to make it start is using 127.0.0.1.

I'm just trying to set up a single node that runs all the apps and is accessible by another machine. It seems a simple use-case but the only documentation I can find doesn't give me any way to make that happen.

And it's frustrating, because when it fails it gives no useful pointers as to why, and when it looks like it's sorta working, it still fails to work properly and, again, gives no useful clues as to what's wrong or how to fix it.

Tearing my hair out here.

--
Guy Morton
Web Development Manager
Brüel & Kjær EMS


________________________________________
From: riak-users [riak-users-bounces at lists.basho.com] on behalf of Toby Corkindale [toby.corkindale at strategicdata.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2013 10:51 AM
To: Sean Cribbs
Cc: riak-users
Subject: Re: Riak-CS-Control

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.
<Section>
   <Subsection>
     Key Value
   </Subsection>
</Section>


-Toby


_______________________________________________
riak-users mailing list
riak-users at lists.basho.com
http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com

This e-mail is confidential and may be read, copied and used only by the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail. Please then delete the e-mail and do not disclose its contents to any other person.




More information about the riak-users mailing list