[ASCII-2510] Add remote-autodiscovery scheduler streaming endpoint #31324
Conversation
pgimalac
requested review from
GustavoCaso
and removed request for
hush-hush
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=50689176 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit 6b8d1d8 |
| if err != nil { | ||
| log.Warnf("error sending %s autodiscovery event: %s", eventType.String(), err) | ||
| s.done <- err | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we exit if there is an error when sending an event? If we disconnect here, we need to figure a way reconnect.
What other option do you think we could do?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I kept that logic from the AK branch, but I'm wondering the same... 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could implement a retry mechanism, but that's already what happens inside s.out.Send (I think ?) so I'm not sure it's super useful
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: bcfd6ab Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +1.63 | [+1.51, +1.74] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +1.07 | [-1.93, +4.06] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.32 | [+0.28, +0.36] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.31 | [-0.47, +1.09] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.19 | [-0.66, +1.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.09 | [-0.54, +0.72] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.72, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.03 | [-0.09, +0.14] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.09, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.81, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.82, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.03 | [-0.76, +0.69] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.69, +0.55] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.13 | [-0.59, +0.34] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.27 | [-0.35, -0.18] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.35 | [-1.13, +0.43] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | lost_bytes | 8/10 | |
| ✅ | 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 | 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 memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: bcfd6ab
|
pgimalac
force-pushed
the
pgimalac/add-remote-autodiscovery
branch
from
8f9a959 to
9b5586c
Compare
…/add-remote-autodiscovery
|
Hello @pgimalac Could you please add more details to the PR description? I feel like I am missing a lot of context about what (and why) we are trying to achieve here. |
pgimalac
changed the title
…/add-remote-autodiscovery
pgimalac
added
the
qa/done
…/add-remote-autodiscovery
Package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
Add a remote autodiscovery scheduler GRPC endpoint in the API.
The endpoint streams autodiscovery config event changes (schedule, unschedule).
On starting the connection, it sends all currently scheduled configs.
Motivation
Use it in the POC checks-agent, to avoid having to include autodiscovery and its transitive dependencies.
Describe how to test/QA your changes
Unit tests have been added.
The first user is the (POC) checks agent, which will ensure this works as expected, see #31571.
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes