-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/48866/#review138331
-----------------------------------------------------------




ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/LOGSEARCH/0.5.0/package/scripts/service_check.py
 (line 30)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/48866/#comment203500>

    Why does a service check need retries?
    What sort of errors are you expecting?


- Alejandro Fernandez


On June 17, 2016, 6:50 p.m., Oliver Szabo wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/48866/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 17, 2016, 6:50 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Ambari, Don Bosco Durai, Robert Nettleton, Sumit Mohanty, 
> and Sebastian Toader.
> 
> 
> Bugs: branch-2.4 and trunk
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/branch-2.4
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/trunk
> 
> 
> Repository: ambari
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Adding simple service check for logsearch server.
> Solr service check wont be needed, because later we can add a helth_check 
> endpoint to logsearch server, there the portal can communicate with the solr 
> instances.
> Also unti kerberization of the logsearch-portal is not supported, we do not 
> need to do any kinit before the status check (solr kerberos support will be 
> added in 2.4.0, but if logsearch portal is configured well, then it can 
> communicate with kerberized solr instances anyway)
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/LOGSEARCH/0.5.0/metainfo.xml 
> 48451a0 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/LOGSEARCH/0.5.0/package/scripts/params.py
>  8a1449d 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/LOGSEARCH/0.5.0/package/scripts/service_check.py
>  PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/48866/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> testing done.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Oliver Szabo
> 
>

Reply via email to