On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:13 PM Christophe JAILLET <[email protected]> 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. > > > > 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.
