Skip to content
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

Separate readiness and liveness probe #1610

Closed
bouskaJ opened this issue Jul 15, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2740
Closed

Separate readiness and liveness probe #1610

bouskaJ opened this issue Jul 15, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2740
Assignees

Comments

@bouskaJ
Copy link
Contributor

bouskaJ commented Jul 15, 2020

We have a common configuration property for enablement liveness and readiness probes ({{container.probes-enabled}}). But those probes are used for different use-cases.
See probes documentation:

The kubelet uses liveness probes to know when to restart a container.

 For example, liveness probes could catch a deadlock, where an application is running, but unable to make progress. Restarting a container in such a state can help to make the application more available despite bugs.
The kubelet uses readiness probes to know when a container is ready to start accepting traffic.

 A Pod is considered ready when all of its containers are ready. One use of this signal is to control which Pods are used as backends for Services. When a Pod is not ready, it is removed from Service load balancers.

https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/configure-liveness-readiness-startup-probes/

I can imagine an application that should not be restarted on an unhealthy status (only readiness probe makes sense to configure) and vice versa.

@prapakaransp
Copy link

@bouskaJ Agreed. Both are different. It needs to be addressed separately for both liveness and readiness proof.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants