this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
29 points (96.8% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54015 readers
423 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
💰 Please help cover server costs.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If all else fails you can overwrite the healthcheck command or even disable it altogether.
lol that second one is a terrible idea
Wouldn't you want to turn it off if it doesn't work reliably? I struggle to see the point of keeping around a health check that behaves erratically.
I suppose it’s a personal choice of where you set the bar for your systems.
Personally, as a software engineer who’s designed and built a lot of systems over the course of my career: nope - not if you want to just set it and forget it, that is. Which I do. And yes, most of the systems I’ve built professionally aren’t to that standard (mostly due to time constraints), which has consistently frustrated me, but you gotta be a little bit zen about stuff you don’t have complete ownership over.
Maybe your tolerance for manual intervention is higher than mine, but in terms personal standards, I don’t consider a system to be “done” until it’s configured to to handle itself resiliently and recoverably in all but the most catastrophic situations (I.e. basically, a hardware fault, or some sort of fairly serious upstream infrastructure failure).
All that said: YMMV. It’s a personal preference, and I know my standards would be considered abnormally strict by some.