> On Aug 24, 2018, at 1:18 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
>
> I don't think it's hc execution time relatve to interval, it's hc
> execution time relative to AP_WD_TM_SLICE. If it's much more than
> AP_WD_TM_SLICE they'll stack up while one is running.
> For a 1 second response you could queue up 1
Le 24/08/2018 à 19:08, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:53 PM, Christophe JAILLET
wrote:
I've only found it in mod_proxy_balancer and, IIUC, the meaning is "slightly"
different from its use in hcheck! :)
Looks like this 'updated' field was dedicated for recording the time a wo
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 1:05 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:05 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:57 AM Christophe JAILLET
> wrote:
>
>
> Le 24/08/2018 à 16:40, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
>
> I was wondering if someone wanted to provide a sanity check
> o
> On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:53 PM, Christophe JAILLET
> wrote:
>
> I've only found it in mod_proxy_balancer and, IIUC, the meaning is "slightly"
> different from its use in hcheck! :)
> Looks like this 'updated' field was dedicated for recording the time a worker
> has been added.
>
> So, my
> On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:05 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:57 AM Christophe JAILLET
> mailto:christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr>> wrote:
>>
>> 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 a
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 wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:13 PM Christophe JAILLET
> mailto:christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr>> wrote:
>>
>> Le 24/08/2018 à 17:56, Christophe
Le 24/08/2018 à 18:21, Eric Covener a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:13 PM Christophe JAILLET
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 "e
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:13 PM Christophe JAILLET
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
Yes, agreed.
CJ
Le 24/08/2018 à 18:05, Eric Covener a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:57 AM Christophe JAILLET
wrote:
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.
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 betw
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:57 AM Christophe JAILLET
wrote:
>
> 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 hcinterv
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 en
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 su
13 matches
Mail list logo
