-
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
event monitor: tests: Allow setting cached hostname #31863
Conversation
When creating spinning the event monitoring, we spend about 5s in each time for trying to fetch the hostname. Since we're in a test context we don't really care about the host name. We allow setting the cached hostname to spare the fetching process. The PR modifies the NewTestProcessConsumer utility to make it automatic
d0d270c
to
4bf143b
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=50519567 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 4bf143b |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 512bca5 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +1.14 | [+1.00, +1.29] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.43 | [-0.34, +1.20] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.40 | [+0.35, +0.44] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.16 | [-0.56, +0.87] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.10 | [-0.37, +0.56] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.84, +0.91] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.76, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.10, +0.08] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.65, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.11 | [-3.00, +2.78] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.25 | [-0.34, -0.16] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.31 | [-1.03, +0.41] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | -0.59 | [-1.27, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -1.63 | [-1.74, -1.52] | 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_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_idle_all_features, 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.
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
When creating spinning the event monitoring, we spend about 5s in each time for trying to fetch the hostname. Since we're in a test context we don't really care about the host name. We allow setting the cached hostname to spare the fetching process.
The PR modifies the NewTestProcessConsumer utility to make it automatic
Motivation
Allow cutting 5s from every test that uses event monitor.
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes