-
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
add a new remote workloadmeta only catalog #32008
Conversation
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: 623bea0
|
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.
LGTM. just small comment change
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=50828497 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit f736348 |
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 623bea0 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.88 | [+0.76, +1.00] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.67 | [+0.55, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.61 | [+0.56, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.26 | [-0.53, +1.06] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.86, +0.87] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.84, +0.84] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.86, +0.86] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.12, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.78, +0.66] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.83, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.73, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.11 | [-0.58, +0.35] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.12 | [-0.75, +0.51] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.20 | [-0.24, -0.16] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.84 | [-3.75, +2.08] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -2.51 | [-3.24, -1.79] | 1 | Logs |
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 | 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.
What does this PR do?
This PR creates a workloadmeta catalog that only contains the remote options. This allows user of this catalog to not include all the dependencies that would be needed to run a local workloadmeta. This also allows to drop the
remotewm
build tag.The flavor check that used to filter the object received to only containers in the case of the security agent is also removed since most of the CWS logic has been moved to the system-probe anyway.
As a side note, the go deps check uses the build tags defined in the new branch for both the before and after sides, so the diff is not correct here. Most of those dependencies were already not included because of the
remotewm
tagMotivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Code covered by tests. Plus dependency check in CI should be enough
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes