github-starred/pangolin
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/fosrl/pangolin.git synced 2026-05-06 12:55:03 -05:00
Code Issues 564 Packages Projects Releases 72 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #2787] Healthcheck preventing a resource from being reachable #11000

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-05-06 15:41:35 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 2 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-05-06 15:41:35 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @svillar on GitHub (Apr 4, 2026).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/fosrl/pangolin/issues/2787

Describe the Bug

I had a healthcheck for a publicly accessible resource. It pointed to an url:port that was no longer accessible, I think at some point the check was correct but then I must have changed some deployments. The thing is that the service was not accessible because that healthcheck was wrong (newt was complaining about it, that's how I found that it was the issue).

Disabling the healthcheck made the resource available again.

My point is that a healthcheck, which is basically meant to get notified about potential issues, should not block access to the actual resources if they're available.

Environment

  • OS Type & Version: (e.g., Ubuntu 22.04)
  • Pangolin Version: 1.16
  • Gerbil Version:
  • Traefik Version:
  • Newt Version: 1.9
  • Olm Version: (if applicable)

To Reproduce

Setup a publicly accessible resource with a wrong healthcheck test

Expected Behavior

The service is still accessible from the outside

Originally created by @svillar on GitHub (Apr 4, 2026). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/fosrl/pangolin/issues/2787 ### Describe the Bug I had a healthcheck for a publicly accessible resource. It pointed to an url:port that was no longer accessible, I *think* at some point the check was correct but then I must have changed some deployments. The thing is that the service was not accessible because that healthcheck was wrong (newt was complaining about it, that's how I found that it was the issue). Disabling the healthcheck made the resource available again. My point is that a healthcheck, which is basically meant to get notified about potential issues, should not block access to the actual resources if they're available. ### Environment - OS Type & Version: (e.g., Ubuntu 22.04) - Pangolin Version: 1.16 - Gerbil Version: - Traefik Version: - Newt Version: 1.9 - Olm Version: (if applicable) ### To Reproduce Setup a publicly accessible resource with a wrong healthcheck test ### Expected Behavior The service is still accessible from the outside
GiteaMirror commented 2026-05-06 15:41:37 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@oschwartz10612 commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2026):

Hey, thanks for the thought! This is actually expected behavior. When a
health check fails the target gets taken out of rotation so other
targets if available can serve the resource or so the user sees a "no
server available" which is the expected error message in this case.

This is normal LB behavior. AWS for example:
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/latest/application/target-group-health-checks.html#target-health-states:~:text=Each%20load%20balancer%20node%20routes%20requests%20only%20to%20the%20healthy%20targets%20in%20the%20enabled%20Availability%20Zones%20for%20the%20load%20balancer.

<!-- gh-comment-id:4187193757 --> @oschwartz10612 commented on GitHub (Apr 4, 2026): Hey, thanks for the thought! This is actually expected behavior. When a health check fails the target gets taken out of rotation so other targets if available can serve the resource or so the user sees a "no server available" which is the expected error message in this case. This is normal LB behavior. AWS for example: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/latest/application/target-group-health-checks.html#target-health-states:~:text=Each%20load%20balancer%20node%20routes%20requests%20only%20to%20the%20healthy%20targets%20in%20the%20enabled%20Availability%20Zones%20for%20the%20load%20balancer.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-05-06 15:41:38 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@svillar commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2026):

Ok, a misinterpretation from my side of what the healthcheck means. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the great work folks!

<!-- gh-comment-id:4197046234 --> @svillar commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2026): Ok, a misinterpretation from my side of what the healthcheck means. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the great work folks!
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
api
authentication
bug
config
dependencies
docker
documentation
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
Improvement
Look Into
needs investigating
networking
new feature
non-critical bug
potential bug
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
reverse proxy
Security
stale
ui
wontfix
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/pangolin#11000
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?