Toby, It seems to me like it would be nice if Riak "just worked" when you > installed it, instead of requiring each and every user to have to track > something down in the docs and then configure it in their chef/puppet > manifests. Don't you agree that is a desirable feature of good software? > (ie. Sensible defaults) >
That's a good point, and like I said above, I was willing to accept that I was the only one with those views. I filed an issue for my backlog https://github.com/basho/node_package/issues/55 to take a look at that. It is probably too late for our next major release to get in, but I do indeed want to make this easier on everyone, so thanks for the feedback. -Jared On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Toby Corkindale < toby.corkind...@strategicdata.com.au> wrote: > On 16/05/13 15:38, Jared Morrow wrote: > >> I've considered packaging separate files for configuring the limit >> for people, but the user in me always felt like that was something >> the sysadmin should have a say in. I rather dislike packages that >> make system changes without my knowledge or consent. Maybe that is >> just me? >> > > It's not making a system change though -- it's only adjusting things for > the riak/riakcs user. > > Can you think of any situation where a user would WANT to stick to the > default 1024 file-handle limit and yet be running Riak? > > Now think of how often that situation occurs, compared to the number of > times where the user DOES want the "good" number setup, and would just like > to install Riak and then get on with their work? > > It seems to me like it would be nice if Riak "just worked" when you > installed it, instead of requiring each and every user to have to track > something down in the docs and then configure it in their chef/puppet > manifests. Don't you agree that is a desirable feature of good software? > (ie. Sensible defaults) > > Cheers, > Toby > > > On May 15, 2013, at 10:54 PM, Toby Corkindale >> <toby.corkindale@**strategicdata.com.au<toby.corkind...@strategicdata.com.au>> >> wrote: >> >> On 16/05/13 14:39, Toby Corkindale wrote: >>> >>>> On 16/05/13 14:24, Jared Morrow wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well the riak-cs / riak / stanchion scripts all drop privileges >>>>> using sudo. On RHEL/Centos this sudo exec carries the settings >>>>> from the calling user (in the case of init.d, root) so things >>>>> are fine there. On Ubuntu/Debian that does not always work. >>>>> So if you set the ulimit for the root user, it might not >>>>> propagate through to the riak-cs / riak / stanchion users. >>>>> >>>>> So to change that, you should try to change it in >>>>> /etc/security/limits.conf. >>>>> >>>> >>>> My understanding is that only sessions opened through PAM will >>>> be effected by the limits.d/* config files. ie. Not daemon >>>> processes. (I've checked this anyway with the following >>>> /etc/security/limits.d/riakcs.**conf: riak-cs hard nofile >>>> 32002 riak-cs soft nofile 32001 ) >>>> >>>> As noted previously, this problem was not occurring on the >>>> current Ubuntu LTS nodes; just the Debian Squeeze ones. Which >>>> makes it particularly odd. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your help so far; I'll continue to investigate and >>>> report back if I find a solution. >>>> >>> >>> I realised that the Riak CS user was called "riakcs" and not >>> "riak-cs". Once I changed that in the limits.d/riakcs.conf file, >>> riakcs started working without the file warning. >>> >>> I also added in a line for the regular "riak" user while I was >>> there. >>> >>> May I suggest you add this to the debian/ubuntu packages by >>> default? (ie. a file in /etc/security/limits.d/ ) >>> >>> >>> Cheers, Toby >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ riak-users mailing >>> list riak-users@lists.basho.com >>> http://lists.basho.com/**mailman/listinfo/riak-users_**lists.basho.com<http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
