aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zameer Manji <zma...@twopensource.com>
Subject Re: Health Check Disabler Discussion
Date Fri, 10 Oct 2014 21:46:09 GMT
+1 #2. We don't surface disabling health checks anywhere to the user. I
think the system should err on the side of caution and get to the state
that it is advertising on the UI.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Maxim Khutornenko <maxim@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 to the #1. Disabling health checks is like signing a waiver where
> all health check guarantees are off.
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, David Pan <david.pan2@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Aurora,
> >
> > I am currently working on a feature that allows for health checks to be
> > disabled temporarily for a running instance of a job.  The code review
> can
> > be found at https://reviews.apache.org/r/26383/.  The idea is that the
> > presence of a special "snooze file" in the task's sandbox will trigger
> the
> > disabling of the health checks.
> >
> > Currently, the code reviewers have split off into two camps:
> > 1. One set of reviewers believe that simplicity is key.  Disable the
> health
> > checks if the snooze file is present, enable it otherwise.
> >
> > 2. The other set of reviewers believe that there should be a snooze
> > duration.  The timer starts when the snooze file is touched.  After the
> > snooze duration is exhausted, the snooze file should be deleted by the
> > health checker, and health checks resume.  This is useful if the process
> > that initially disabled the health checks dies unexpectedly, and is no
> > longer there to re-enable the health checks.
> >
> > I would like to invite anyone interested to voice your opinions and chime
> > in.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > David Pan
>



-- 
Zameer Manji

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message