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

Re: [Bug 62318] healthcheck

Yes, but the updated field is used differently for the health check workers and
the "real" workers.

On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:21 PM, Eric Covener <covener@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:13 PM Christophe JAILLET
<christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.


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.