-
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
[usm] reliability, preparation for pool of objects, Protocol.ReleaseStats() #32170
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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=51139447 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 3e43c34 |
Package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
…all usmMonitor.ReleaseStats()
3b9b414
to
3e43c34
Compare
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: c819811 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +0.44 | [-2.52, +3.41] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.16 | [-0.30, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.16 | [-0.57, +0.88] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.07 | [-0.86, +1.00] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.60, +0.66] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.84, +0.88] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.08, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.74, +0.74] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.94, +0.88] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.08 | [-0.86, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.10 | [-0.87, +0.66] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.31 | [-0.44, -0.19] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.39 | [-0.44, -0.34] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.71 | [-0.77, -0.65] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | -1.58 | [-2.28, -0.88] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -1.97 | [-2.09, -1.84] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
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, 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_logs, 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.
What does this PR do?
It adds usm Protocol.ReleaseStats() to release reported stats objects.
It introduces a chain of functions to invoke ReleaseStats(), starting from the network tracer.
The HTTP handler retains and implicitly releases references to the reported statistics.
Motivation
This is part of the ongoing reliability effort, serving as a preparation step for adding a pool of DDSketch objects.
It breaks the task of implementing the object pool into two distinct phases.
Describe how you validated your changes
Unit tests.
Running usm http load tests.
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes