Re: [Bug 62318] healthcheck
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:13 PM Christophe JAILLET
> 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())?
Looks like s->updated is not used elsewhere in HC but is used
elsewhere in proxy modules and is in the API.
I don't know if that calls for a 2nd timestamp or a just a bit for
when checks are in progress. Could be useful in
the future to keep track of the addl information.