You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When using redis the nanite- key gets set with the load_average when the node registers but it is not updated after that by heartbeat messages. It seems that the intention is that the heartbeat/ping sends the load average so that the load average will be put in Redis. This is not happening because the code in cluster.rb (handle_ping) is doing:
if nanite = nanites[ping.identity]
nanite[:status] = ping.status
but nanites[ping.identity] returns an anonymous Hash, so updating it here does nothing. As such this value is never sent to Redis. I have confirmed that hacking in a update_status function to the Nanite::State class (which just updates the nanite- key in redis) and then calling it in the handle_ping as:
nanites.update_status(ping.identity, ping.status)
causes the value in Redis to be updated at every heartbeat. Was it the intended behavior for this function (handle_ping) to update Redis? The comment seems to indicate that is the case.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When using redis the nanite- key gets set with the load_average when the node registers but it is not updated after that by heartbeat messages. It seems that the intention is that the heartbeat/ping sends the load average so that the load average will be put in Redis. This is not happening because the code in cluster.rb (handle_ping) is doing:
but nanites[ping.identity] returns an anonymous Hash, so updating it here does nothing. As such this value is never sent to Redis. I have confirmed that hacking in a update_status function to the Nanite::State class (which just updates the nanite- key in redis) and then calling it in the handle_ping as:
causes the value in Redis to be updated at every heartbeat. Was it the intended behavior for this function (handle_ping) to update Redis? The comment seems to indicate that is the case.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: