-
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
[ASCII-2567] propagate the tagger component when building the OTLP pipeline for serverless-init #31576
Conversation
6acded1
to
832aac9
Compare
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=50728028 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 2331c61 |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 8d89378 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.77 | [+0.04, +1.50] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.77 | [+0.64, +0.89] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.47 | [-0.19, +1.14] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.40 | [-0.38, +1.19] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.22 | [+0.15, +0.29] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.10 | [-0.63, +0.84] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.08, +0.12] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.94, +0.95] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.02, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.83, +0.74] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.93, +0.81] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.10 | [-0.56, +0.35] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.12 | [-0.89, +0.64] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.14 | [-0.19, -0.10] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.18 | [-0.81, +0.46] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -1.16 | [-1.26, -1.06] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -4.50 | [-7.37, -1.63] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 7/10 | |
❌ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 8/10 | |
❌ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
❌ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | memory_usage | 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 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | 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 memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Serverless Benchmark Results
tl;drUse these benchmarks as an insight tool during development.
What is this benchmarking?The The benchmark is run using a large variety of lambda request payloads. In the charts below, there is one row for each event payload type. How do I interpret these charts?The charts below comes from The benchstat docs explain how to interpret these charts.
I need more helpFirst off, do not worry if the benchmarks are failing. They are not tests. The intention is for them to be a tool for you to use during development. If you would like a hand interpreting the results come chat with us in Benchmark stats
|
Package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
…peline for serverless-init (DataDog#31576) ea648f3
What does this PR do?
Fixes #31126
While working on this PR #25711 we introduced the need to pass the tagger component to the serverless OTLP pipeline, but on the PR we passed
nil
https://github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pull/25711/files#diff-6296bd96f007b9b01a2fd59455063636a5c883ec02cc5ef72496b21d91031443R32We got reports of that being an issue in production.
This PR fixes the issue, by passing the tagger component 😄
Motivation
Describe how to test/QA your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes