The question arose while comparing the notions of compactness, countable compactness, local compactness, and "Lindelofness" in Hausdorff spaces. It is straightforward to show that compactness implies any of the other properties. I found ready counterexamples (I will be glad to provide them if asked) for all but one of the other possible implications, namely the question of whether countable compactness implies local compactness. The paper "On Countably Compact Nonlocally Compact Spaces" by T. B. Rushing shows that, in general, countable compactness does not imply local compactness. The examples he provides, however, are not Hausdorff.

Examples abound: take for instance a $\Sigma$product of twopoint spaces. To be specific let $X$ be the set of points in $\lbrace0,1\rbrace^{\omega_1}$ that have only countably many coordinates that are $1$. This set is dense but not open in the product, hence not locally compact but it is countably compact as each countably infinite subset sits in a compact subset of $X$. 


Example 3.10.17 of Engelking's General Topology (Heldermann Verlag Berlin 1989) is the following dense subspace of $I^{\mathbb R}$, where $I=[0,1]$: Let $X$ be the set of all $(x_t)_{t\in\mathbb R}\in I^{\mathbb R}$ such that $x_t$ is different from zero for at most countably many $t\in\mathbb R$. Being a subspace of $I^{\mathbb R}$, the space is Hausdorff. The space is not locally compact: Hence $X$ is not locally compact. 


Le $X$ be any Hausdorff, sequentially compact, not compact space (e.g. $\omega_1$ with the order topology). Then $X^\mathbb{N}$ is Hausdorff, sequentially (hence countably) compact, and not locally compact, because any set with nonempty interior is mapped surjectively onto $X$ by some projection, thus is not compact as $X$ itself is not. 

