[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug 62318] healthcheck


Le 24/08/2018 à 17:56, Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
Le 24/08/2018 à 16:40, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
I was wondering if someone wanted to provide a sanity check
on the above PR and what's "expected" by the health check code.

It would be very easy to adjust so that hcinterval was not
the time between successive checks but the interval between
the end of one and the start of another, but I'm not sure that
is as useful. In other words, I think the current behavior
is right (but think the docs need to be updated), but am
willing to have my mind changed :)

Hi Jim,

the current behavior is also what I would expect.
If I configure a check every 10s, I would expect 6 checks each minute, even if the test itself takes time to perform.



Not related, but is there any use for 'hc_pre_config()'?
We already have:
   static int tpsize = HC_THREADPOOL_SIZE;

Having both looks redundant.

CJ


but shouldn't we
   worker->s->update = now;
when the check is started (in hc_watchdog_callback()) instead of when it is funished (at the end of hc_check())?

Otherwise, it could be re-triggered before the completion of the first one (if slow)

CJ