-
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
[ASCII-2585] Migrating ProcessAgent to use IPC cert #31844
[ASCII-2585] Migrating ProcessAgent to use IPC cert #31844
Conversation
856cefb
to
2d6e35a
Compare
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=50933207 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 22c58de |
2d6e35a
to
d434a2d
Compare
d1bd1c3
to
853a60e
Compare
d551de2
to
65b1679
Compare
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: c96e647 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +2.57 | [+2.45, +2.69] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.66 | [+0.54, +0.78] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.65 | [-0.08, +1.37] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.31 | [-0.37, +0.99] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.81, +0.90] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.75, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.83, +0.87] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.77, +0.77] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.12, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.79, +0.68] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.92, +0.77] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.09 | [-0.55, +0.37] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.11 | [-0.75, +0.52] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.36 | [-3.30, +2.58] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.42 | [-0.49, -0.35] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.52 | [-0.56, -0.47] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
❌ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
✅ | 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 | 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.
65b1679
to
ccdd1e4
Compare
ccdd1e4
to
44b8c90
Compare
44b8c90
to
22c58de
Compare
Package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
This PR replaces the self-signed certificate used in the Process Agent with the new Agent-wide IPC certificate. This change will allow Agents to identify this API as legitimate when they act as a client.
The certificate generation/retrieval implementation have been made in the following PR:
Motivation
This PR takes place in a plan of Agent security IPC improvement.
Describe how you validated your changes
Process Agent API is extensively used in Process Agent e2e tests. They should fail if the current PR introduce bugs.
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes