Skip to content
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 bandwidth metrics to KPIs #670

Merged

Conversation

jotak
Copy link

@jotak jotak commented Dec 4, 2024

Adding two metrics to KPIs:

  • nWorkloadBytesProcessedPerMinuteNetobserv, which tells bandwidth captured by netobserv
  • nWorkloadBytesProcessedPerMinuteCadvisor, which tells bandwidth captured via container metrics / cAdvisor

Both of them are interesting, as they can tell:

  • That netobserv captured the expected amount of traffic, ie. not dropping too much, and checking correctness at the same time, ie. we haven't introduced a regression that miscounts bytes
  • That the workload traffic isn't affected by netobserv (ie. a drop in cAdvisor metrics is an indication of performance regression with latency induced by netobserv)

Those metrics are more reliable than the number of flows for these goals because the workload bandwidth is supposed to be somewhat consistant across runs, whereas number of flows is a more arbitrary measure that is only loosely related to the actual measured bandwidth.

Adding two metrics to KPIs:
- nWorkloadBytesProcessedPerMinuteNetobserv, which tells bandwidth
  captured by netobserv
- nWorkloadBytesProcessedPerMinuteCadvisor, which tells bandwidth
  captured via container metrics / cAdvisor

Both of them are interesting, as they can tell:
- That netobserv captured the expected amount of traffic, ie. not
  dropping too much, and checking correctness at the same time
- That the workload traffic isn't affected by netobserv (ie. a drop in
  cAdvisor metrics is an indication of performance regression with
latency induced by netobserv)

Those metrics are more reliable than the number of flows for these goals
because the workload bandwidth is supposed to be somewhat consistant across runs,
whereas number of flows is a more arbitrary measure that is only loosely
related to the actual measured bandwidth.
@jotak
Copy link
Author

jotak commented Dec 4, 2024

/cc @memodi
/cc @Amoghrd
Hey, here's a suggestion to add KPIs, cf explanation above

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from Amoghrd December 4, 2024 07:59
Copy link

@memodi memodi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm
thanks @jotak

Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 4, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jotak, memodi

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved label Dec 4, 2024
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit f1c891f into openshift-qe:netobserv-perf-tests Dec 4, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants