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
increase liveness timeout #10730
increase liveness timeout #10730
Conversation
4798195
to
3eb3e18
Compare
Codecov ReportBase: 45.67% // Head: 45.68% // Increases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #10730 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 45.67% 45.68% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 236 236
Lines 28698 28668 -30
==========================================
- Hits 13107 13097 -10
+ Misses 13799 13779 -20
Partials 1792 1792
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
Hey @cleverhu - if you want to change something in the installation manifests, you have to edit the kustomize sources (e.g. here:
make manifests and commit all changes to your PR.
|
ok,thanks |
8d8bdb0
to
60fd8b9
Compare
4a94cad
to
6061861
Compare
Fix: argoproj#10728 Signed-off-by: cleverhu <shouping.hu@daocloud.io>
6061861
to
3e26a6d
Compare
@cleverhu can you explain the importance of this change and why it should be made upstream instead of applied for individual deployments? |
In my practical use, I have encountered the problem that single-copy server often restarts. If I remove liveness, it will not restart again. Therefore, the default timeout of 1 second is not very reasonable. borrowed from the company's internal projects and the practices of some open source communities, so it should be reasonable to set a longer timeout to prevent the container from restarting. |
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 think this is reasonable. Thanks @cleverhu!
Fix: argoproj#10728 Signed-off-by: cleverhu <shouping.hu@daocloud.io> Signed-off-by: cleverhu <shouping.hu@daocloud.io> Signed-off-by: emirot <emirot.nolan@gmail.com>
Note on DCO:
If the DCO action in the integration test fails, one or more of your commits are not signed off. Please click on the Details link next to the DCO action for instructions on how to resolve this.
Checklist: