-
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
[ha-agent] Add agent_group tag to datadog.agent.running metric #31156
[ha-agent] Add agent_group tag to datadog.agent.running metric #31156
Conversation
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: 30d51b5
|
7f3edb4
to
9b31710
Compare
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv create-vm --pipeline-id=49912338 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit b06fc67 |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 30d51b5 Optimization Goals: ❌ Significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | +3.75 | [-0.11, +7.61] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +1.55 | [+1.49, +1.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.63 | [-0.05, +1.30] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.34 | [-0.46, +1.14] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.24 | [-0.22, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.80, +0.92] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.11, +0.12] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.63, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.71, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.09 | [-0.86, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.31 | [-0.36, -0.27] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.77 | [-0.91, -0.63] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.87 | [-1.60, -0.14] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -2.92 | [-3.02, -2.81] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | -6.28 | [-9.72, -2.84] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
✅ | 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 | 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 |
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, 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.
167c4ae
to
af96a94
Compare
8228ca1
to
e3bd8e5
Compare
…-agent-group-metric-tag
…-agent-group-metric-tag
…-agent-group-metric-tag
📥 📢 Info, this pull request increases the binary size of serverless extension by 0 bytes. Each MB of binary size increase means about 10ms of additional cold start time, so this pull request would increase cold start time by 0ms. Debug infoIf you have questions, we are happy to help, come visit us in the #serverless slack channel and provide a link to this comment. We suggest you consider adding the |
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
|
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 for file owned by @DataDog/container-integrations.
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.
👍 for the file owned by container-platform
@DataDog/agent-metrics-logs Can I have a review? :) |
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
[ha-agent] Add
agent_group
tag todatadog.agent.running
metric.This PR changes a lot of files, but the actual change is only few lines located in
pkg/aggregator/aggregator.go
:https://github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pull/31156/files#diff-0940f1dc68973941178797f388ffb31d3318abeefa87b7f0b66d575915a0e575R867-R869
the rest of the changes are only about injecting correctly the component.
Motivation
Add
agent_group
tag todatadog.agent.running
metric is needed for HA Agent feature.HA Agent will fetch
datadog.agent.running
metric by grouping byhost,agent_group
in backend with:agent_group
tag)datadog.agent.running
)Describe how to test/QA your changes
When HA Agent is enabled, verify that the
datadog.agent.running
metric has the tagagent_group
.1/ Enabled ha_agent feature in datadog.yaml
2/ start the agent and verify
datadog.agent.running
metric has the tagagent_group
.Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes