-
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
fix(installer): Retry connection reset by peer network errors #31115
fix(installer): Retry connection reset by peer network errors #31115
Conversation
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv create-vm --pipeline-id=49118692 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 89fed4c |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: af88334 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | +1.09 | [-2.39, +4.57] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.13 | [-0.11, +0.38] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.46, +0.51] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.05, +0.06] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.08, +0.09] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.49, +0.49] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | +0.00 | [-3.86, +3.86] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.33, +0.33] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.19, +0.18] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.71, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.07 | [-0.11, -0.02] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.23 | [-0.73, +0.26] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.25 | [-0.38, -0.12] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.45 | [-0.56, -0.35] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.01 | [-1.73, -0.30] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 8/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | 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 |
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
❌ Failed. Some Quality Gates were violated.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 8/10 replicas passed. Failed 2 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
We have a lot of "connection reset by peer" network errors that prevent install / upgrades. This PR adds it to the default go-containerregistry retry predicate so we can retry them up to 3 times.
Motivation
Less errors in the installer
Describe how to test/QA your changes
QA-ed manually. Only impacts the installer (not the agent)
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes