-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
[NDMII-3310] Provide API for any integration to become HA Integration #33578
Conversation
cc832d4
to
bc9326c
Compare
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 16bfa4f Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.82 | [+0.76, +0.89] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +0.24 | [-2.80, +3.29] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.12 | [+0.05, +0.18] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.83, +0.94] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.03 | [-0.04, +0.10] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.88, +0.91] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.85, +0.85] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.28, +0.27] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.79, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.48, +0.45] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.66, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.74, +0.68] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.35 | [-1.21, +0.50] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.41 | [-1.18, +0.35] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.46 | [-0.52, -0.39] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | quality_gate_idle | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 |
Explanation
Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%
Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:
- ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
- ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
- ➖ = no significant change in performance
A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".
For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:
-
Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.
-
Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.
-
Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".
CI Pass/Fail Decision
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
c60bebc
to
f40903a
Compare
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=55253733 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 970c555 |
81bf9da
to
a14ad13
Compare
661b3d2
to
9d57235
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please make sure to test the the feature works fine for python integration too.
Also, having a e2e test would be great (can be a separate PR).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just flagging a typo and making some other small adjustments to the release note
3570867
to
53b00cb
Compare
Static quality checks ✅Please find below the results from static quality gates Info
|
What does this PR do?
This PR removes hard coded lists of possible ha integrations in favor of a new config in
CommonInstanceConfig
which is applied forCheckBase
Motivation
We want to let the user configure HA for all integrations and let him enable/disable for each instance
Corresponding RFC: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/II/pages/4452254162/RFC+Support+HA+for+all+integrations
Other PRs are coming to flag integrations as HASupported or not
#33828
DataDog/integrations-core#19580
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes