I think someone who does not allow a repeated trigger of less than 1 minute is shortsighted. After all, 55 seconds are less effective than 1 min? It seems so arbitrary! As much as I love Hangfire, I came across situations where I had to manage the Quartz.net client simply because I needed a business task to work every 55 seconds or the like.
Anyone who makes the counter argument that if it is configured to run every 1 second can seriously affect performance, as it closes the view of things again. Of course, a trigger with an interval of 1 second is probably not a good idea, but can we not save 55 seconds or 45 seconds for the unlikely situation when someone chooses 1 second?
In any case, the performance is both subjective and dependent on the host platform and equipment. It's really not up to the API to enforce opinions when it comes to performance. Just adjust the polling interval and try starting again. Thus, the user can determine the best result for himself.
Although a background process that organizes a task to run every 55 seconds may be an option, this is not very satisfactory. In this case, the process is not displayed through the Hangfire interface, so it is hidden from the administrator. I feel this approach bypasses one of the main benefits of Hangfire.
If Hangfire was a serious competitor to the likes of Quartz.net, it would at least match their basic functionality. If quartz can support triggers with an interval of less than 1 minute, than Hangfire cannot!
source share