Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add more detail to "Initialize a Cluster" from the cockroach init RFC #2756

Closed
rmloveland opened this issue Mar 21, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Comments

@rmloveland
Copy link
Contributor

Initialize a Cluster currently says that cockroach init "performs a one-time initialization", which may be an insufficient level of detail given that:

  1. Users are engineers/DBAs who would likely want to know how/why it works a certain way
  2. There is a semi-redundant alternative to just use cockroach start with no --join flag, which is very confusing (IMO) and makes it even more important that we be very explicit / informative about why init exists / how it works / what the difference is

To address this we should update Initialize a Cluster with more detail (including design rationale) from the init RFC.

@rmloveland
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oh, forgot to mention this was prompted by this user question in the forum:
https://forum.cockroachlabs.com/t/what-does-cockroach-init-actually-do/1443

@bdarnell
Copy link
Contributor

There is a semi-redundant alternative to just use cockroach start with no --join flag

I think we should get rid of that alternative: cockroachdb/cockroach#24118. We should at least be using the init command in all of our docs for multi-node clusters.

@jseldess
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for trigger this thread, @rmloveland. I'm on board with de-emphasizing startup with init, too. We mention it as an option in a few places. In our getting started docs, we should probably be setting expectation right. I actually took this approach in the training.

I'll revisit this if there's time before the release. If not, directly after.

@jseldess
Copy link
Contributor

Closing in favor of #3395.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants