-
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
chore(apm): use tagger ProcessID resolution #34153
Conversation
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 7a8951c Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +2.11 | [-1.00, +5.22] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.89 | [+0.81, +0.97] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.60 | [-0.29, +1.48] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.26 | [-0.20, +0.72] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.82, +0.91] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.82, +0.86] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.28, +0.31] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.87, +0.87] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.00 | [-0.06, +0.06] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.02, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.65, +0.64] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.80, +0.77] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.03 | [-0.10, +0.04] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.66, +0.60] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.83, +0.71] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.23 | [-0.26, -0.19] | 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_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, 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_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 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.
Signed-off-by: Wassim DHIF <[email protected]>
3a5c8bf
to
a2a7c22
Compare
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
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=56149982 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit a2a7c22 |
Static quality checks ✅Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
} | ||
assert.Equal(t, containerID, provider.GetContainerID(req.Context(), req.Header)) | ||
}) | ||
|
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.
maybe replace this test with the new logic? What other coverage exists for the change?
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.
Hey @ichinaski 👋
The tests regarding Origin Detection have been moved to the tagger
: https://github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/blob/main/comp/core/tagger/impl/local_tagger_test.go#L166-L176
What could also be done in the future is to split the GetContainerID()
methods into ParseOriginInfo()
and GetContainerID()
that way we could have unit tests regarding the context and HTTP header parsing done by the Trace Agent.
/merge |
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
The median merge time in
|
What does this PR do?
Migrate the ProcessID resolution for APM to the
tagger
module.Motivation
This is done to ensure consistency in Origin Detection behavior across Datadog Products.
Describe how you validated your changes
QA is done by unit and E2E tests but I also checked manually
process_id_only
) that does not send any container information:Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
None.
Additional Notes
N/A