I think with Chef Cookbooks it is reasonable. Most people look at what the cookbook is doing before using it. This is different from packages where people usually don't rip apart a .deb with dpkg-deb before installing it.
-Jared On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Hector Castro <hec...@basho.com> wrote: > Slightly related, we just recently updated file descriptor limit > support in the Riak cookbook [0]. As of right now, ulimits > automatically get increased (4096 by default) for the `riak` and > `riak-cs` users based on what cookbook you use. > > Perhaps we should make that increase conditional? > > -- > Hector > > [0] > https://github.com/basho/riak-chef-cookbook/commit/2315fcc9dd31145e14526add2d8881456d191bcb > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM, John E. Vincent > <lusis.org+riak-us...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As an opposing viewpoint, I'd argue that it's NOT the requirement of > Riak to > > go automatically changing things outside of its domain. Ulimits and > tunables > > in the same class are not things that should be blindly tweaked by an > > incoming package. These are things the system administrator needs to be > > aware of and scope for the system in use. > > > > I appreciate the idea and desire that Riak work out of the box but I'd > argue > > it already does. What DOESN'T work is an untuned Riak at load. And it > > shouldn't. There are some things that need to be an informed decision. Is > > the default ulimit in most distros too low? Absolutely but it's in the > > domain of the OS/Distro provider and not a third-party package to tweak > > possible dangerous knobs. > > > > The only sane default here is to use what the distro sets and provide > > information for users on how to change it. > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Jared Morrow <ja...@basho.com> wrote: > >> > >> 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.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 > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> riak-users mailing list > >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > 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
