[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-279?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14977343#comment-14977343
]
David McLaughlin commented on AURORA-279:
-----------------------------------------
I see, I agree that is a valid use-case -- although I'd argue you can mostly
protect against that with conservative health checks. I mentioned 'reporting
unhealthy' in my comment because this discussion came up at Twitter, where
people wanted to put health checks like CPU > 90% into their health check and
then make sure the scheduler doesn't kill the instances too quickly... which I
think is a misuse of the health check feature :)
> Allow scheduler to decide how to respond to task health check failures
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AURORA-279
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-279
> Project: Aurora
> Issue Type: Story
> Components: Executor, Scheduler
> Reporter: Bill Farner
> Priority: Minor
>
> The executor is currently autonomous in deciding to kill tasks that have
> failed health checks. If health check failures synchronize across a service,
> the service could suffer an outage. SLA considerations may also need to be
> me made before deciding to kill a task for health check failures.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
