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

Always schedule next_check within check_interval #265

Conversation

jacobbaungard
Copy link
Contributor

After #259 we now keep the
next_check schedule over restarts if use_retained_schedule_info is
enabled. However after this patch, if one would lower the check_interval
it was possible that after the restart, the next check of an object
would be more than one check_interval away.

This commit ensures that if the next_check is more than one
check_interval away, then we randomly schedule the next check, instead
of using the retention data.

This fixed MON-11295 (https://jira.op5.com/browse/MON-11295)

Signed-off-by: Jacob Hansen jhansen@op5.com

After naemon#259 we now keep the
next_check schedule over restarts if use_retained_schedule_info is
enabled. However after this patch, if one would lower the check_interval
it was possible that after the restart, the next check of an object
would be more than one check_interval away.

This commit ensures that if the next_check is more than one
check_interval away, then we randomly schedule the next check, instead
of using the retention data.

This fixed MON-11295 (https://jira.op5.com/browse/MON-11295)

Signed-off-by: Jacob Hansen <jhansen@op5.com>
Copy link

@roengstrom roengstrom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice, looks good!

@jacobbaungard jacobbaungard merged commit ea156c2 into naemon:master Oct 10, 2018
@jacobbaungard jacobbaungard deleted the bugfix/MON-11295-always-execute-checks-within-interval branch October 10, 2018 12:25
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 this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants