-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 812
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add a healthcheck endpoint on the ingesters that distributors can use #741
Merged
bboreham
merged 9 commits into
cortexproject:master
from
CATechnologiesTest:healthcheck-ingesters
Mar 19, 2018
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
da2cc6a
Add a healthcheck endpoint on the ingesters that distributors can use
csmarchbanks 9238ce3
defer cancel for healthcheck timeout
csmarchbanks ddbdcc2
Vendor in health protobuf stuff
csmarchbanks f641950
Split removeStaleIngesterClients and healtCheckAndRemoveIngesters to …
csmarchbanks 2c4426d
Add config for turning on health check behavior
csmarchbanks 4f2addb
Refactored distributor client cache to ingester/client/IngesterClient…
csmarchbanks 41475c6
Add some cache and healtcheck tests
csmarchbanks 343da84
Renaming cache -> pool
csmarchbanks 72930ea
Move CleanUnhealthy to the ingester client package, add tests
csmarchbanks File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
:-( I prefer the defer way, mainly because it makes the lock more robust to future modifications.
As the remote timeout is set to 2s, and the removeStateIngesterClients functions only runs every 15s, do we really need the extra goroutines and waitgroup?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also prefer the defer way. Since we have the mutex, even 1 timeout of 2s would block any other rules getting evaluated during that time which concerned me.
I could get rid of the wait group, but keep the goroutines. That should be ok since all the healthchecks should be done after at most 2s, and cleanup period is 15s by default. What do you think of that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Of course (d'oh).
How about making it all nice and inline, synchronous code that builds a new clients dict without holding the lock, and then replaces the old one under the lock?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I split the logic for removing stale ingester clients and healthchecking the ingester clients. I think everything is properly deferred now. Let me know what you think!