Extended Agent telemetry histogram details #32343
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
team/agent-shared-components
long review
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=51783104 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit 9d011bd |
- Added to a histogram's payload previously omitted and implicit `+Inf` bucket value - Added histogram's p75, p95 and p99 values (expressed as the upper-bound for the matching bucket).
iglendd
force-pushed
the
len.gamburg/agent-tel-extend-histogr
branch
from
46574c7 to
d9675d3
Compare
iglendd
added
the
qa/done
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 272716f Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.80 | [+0.76, +0.83] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.47 | [-0.22, +1.15] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.46 | [+0.33, +0.59] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.19 | [-0.58, +0.97] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.16 | [-0.31, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.13 | [-0.72, +0.99] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.58, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.11, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.73, +0.68] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.95, +0.86] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.10 | [-1.01, +0.80] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.22 | [-3.47, +3.03] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.45 | [-0.54, -0.37] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.66 | [-1.45, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -1.21 | [-1.27, -1.14] | 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_logs, 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_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
releasenotes/notes/agent-tel-extend-histogr-6e2da94e63edcaf8.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
releasenotes/notes/agent-tel-extend-histogr-6e2da94e63edcaf8.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // For regular metric (and for HISTOGRAM +Inf bucket which follows the last bucket) | ||
| keyNames = append(keyNames, keyName) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be inside the for loop that starts at line 260? If metrics has 2 items (for example) and neither has tags, then keyName gets set to the metricName both iterations of the loop, and then appended to keyNames twice.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed @dustmop that would be a problem. And visually it looks like that, but if you look carefully the line is inside the loop. Still, thank you for noticing that, I fall to the same conclusion by looking on the diff here.
At any rate, I have used this as an opportunity to improve code a bit more and write a few more unit tests. Thank you again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry I'm confused, I was saying it should not be inside the loop. Or rather, that this line being inside the for loop could cause a bug from my understanding of the logic.
However, if that's whats intended then perhaps it isn't a problem, and I just don't understand the larger usage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The additional tests help to coverage the change in functionality, and they seem to be working as intended, so this is all good by me.
Co-authored-by: Heston Hoffman <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Heston Hoffman <[email protected]>
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // For regular metric (and for HISTOGRAM +Inf bucket which follows the last bucket) | ||
| keyNames = append(keyNames, keyName) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry I'm confused, I was saying it should not be inside the loop. Or rather, that this line being inside the for loop could cause a bug from my understanding of the logic.
However, if that's whats intended then perhaps it isn't a problem, and I just don't understand the larger usage.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // For regular metric (and for HISTOGRAM +Inf bucket which follows the last bucket) | ||
| keyNames = append(keyNames, keyName) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The additional tests help to coverage the change in functionality, and they seem to be working as intended, so this is all good by me.
|
Thank you @dustmop. Sorry for adding to the confusion. I have added more comments which possibly clarify it. Indeed there are 2 possibilities (with tags and without) doubled by histogram. See my last commit for the comments. |
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
releasenotes/notes/agent-tel-extend-histogr-6e2da94e63edcaf8.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Esther Kim <[email protected]>
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
Extended Agent telemetry histogram details, specifically
+Infbucket valueMotivation
Make it more accurate and easier to use
Describe how you validated your changes
Unit tests have been added here
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes