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

Allow multiple checks attached to a service #230

Closed
keyneston opened this Issue Jun 25, 2014 · 13 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@keyneston
Contributor

keyneston commented Jun 25, 2014

It would be useful if a service can have multiple checks associated with it. For example you might want a check for seeing if the service is alive and a check to make sure that the service is running the correct software version.

By allowing multiple checks its then possible to build generic checks for checking version while having a check specific to the service for checking if the service is running.

@abursavich

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@abursavich

abursavich Jun 26, 2014

Contributor

I ran into a similar situation where I wanted multiple checks for a single service and was surprised to realize that it wasn't allowed.

Contributor

abursavich commented Jun 26, 2014

I ran into a similar situation where I wanted multiple checks for a single service and was surprised to realize that it wasn't allowed.

@armon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@armon

armon Jun 27, 2014

Member

So internally we allow multiple checks per service, it is just a limitation of our config file format. We can probably add a "checks" key such that a list of checks can be provided instead of a single "check" block.

Member

armon commented Jun 27, 2014

So internally we allow multiple checks per service, it is just a limitation of our config file format. We can probably add a "checks" key such that a list of checks can be provided instead of a single "check" block.

@armon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@armon

armon Jun 27, 2014

Member

As a work around, using the API will allow multiple checks to be registered

Member

armon commented Jun 27, 2014

As a work around, using the API will allow multiple checks to be registered

@abursavich

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@abursavich

abursavich Jun 27, 2014

Contributor

The only way that I could see to register multiple was to go through the catalog endpoints instead of the agent endpoints. Will the anti-entropy in the agent remove any services/checks/etc that weren't registered through it?

Contributor

abursavich commented Jun 27, 2014

The only way that I could see to register multiple was to go through the catalog endpoints instead of the agent endpoints. Will the anti-entropy in the agent remove any services/checks/etc that weren't registered through it?

@armon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@armon

armon Jun 29, 2014

Member

@abursavich Hmm that is a good point. I think you are right, the agent will deregister them when anti-entropy happens.

Member

armon commented Jun 29, 2014

@abursavich Hmm that is a good point. I think you are right, the agent will deregister them when anti-entropy happens.

@geku

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@geku

geku Jun 30, 2014

From my point of view it's important to be able to register/deregister service health checks independent of the service itself. This allows to add health checks at a later time without re-regestring the service itself. Currently it's only possible to register the one service health check together with the service.

geku commented Jun 30, 2014

From my point of view it's important to be able to register/deregister service health checks independent of the service itself. This allows to add health checks at a later time without re-regestring the service itself. Currently it's only possible to register the one service health check together with the service.

@abursavich

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@abursavich

abursavich Jul 1, 2014

Contributor

This is really a different issue, but if there will be changes to service registration I'd just like to note that it's important to be able to mutate a service definition without having to deregister then reregister it. Consider acquiring a lock and then needing to add a tag (e.g. "master") without losing the lock by first deregistering the service and its associated health checks.

Contributor

abursavich commented Jul 1, 2014

This is really a different issue, but if there will be changes to service registration I'd just like to note that it's important to be able to mutate a service definition without having to deregister then reregister it. Consider acquiring a lock and then needing to add a tag (e.g. "master") without losing the lock by first deregistering the service and its associated health checks.

@armon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@armon

armon Jul 1, 2014

Member

I agree with all of the above 👍

Member

armon commented Jul 1, 2014

I agree with all of the above 👍

@armon armon added the enhancement label Oct 14, 2014

@DevBOFH

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DevBOFH

DevBOFH Nov 18, 2014

Any updates on this one? Allowing multiple checks on a service is desperately needed.

DevBOFH commented Nov 18, 2014

Any updates on this one? Allowing multiple checks on a service is desperately needed.

@armon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@armon

armon Nov 18, 2014

Member

Not yet, but it is top of mind!

Member

armon commented Nov 18, 2014

Not yet, but it is top of mind!

@janitha

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@janitha

janitha Dec 11, 2014

+1 Would be really useful to be able to attach multiple health checks per service

janitha commented Dec 11, 2014

+1 Would be really useful to be able to attach multiple health checks per service

@amiorin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@amiorin

amiorin commented Dec 17, 2014

👍

@rrreeeyyy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rrreeeyyy

rrreeeyyy commented Jan 7, 2015

👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment