-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
discovery: module: add /services endpoint alongside existing /check endpoint #37504
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
discovery: module: add /services endpoint alongside existing /check endpoint #37504
Conversation
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: aa7d8ba Optimization Goals: ❌ Regression(s) detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +7.59 | [+4.26, +10.91] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +1.04 | [+0.98, +1.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.67 | [+0.52, +0.82] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.58 | [+0.37, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.43 | [+0.35, +0.50] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | +0.13 | [+0.00, +0.25] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | +0.07 | [-0.01, +0.15] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.62, +0.71] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.61, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.61, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.01 | [-0.15, +0.16] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.28, +0.26] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.64, +0.60] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.25, +0.21] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.61, +0.55] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.65, +0.58] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.63, +0.56] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | -0.08 | [-0.19, +0.04] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | -0.68 | [-0.82, -0.54] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -0.82 | [-0.88, -0.76] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.57 | [-2.44, -0.70] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -2.72 | [-5.48, +0.05] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 0/10 | |
❌ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 7/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
❌ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 9/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
✅ | 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 | 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 | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 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
❌ Failed. Some Quality Gates were violated.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 7/10 replicas passed. Failed 3 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 9/10 replicas passed. Failed 1 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
…ndpoint - Add new /services endpoint that accepts pids parameter and bypasses port retry logic - Restore original /check endpoint functionality with port retry logic - Separate test files: impl_linux_test.go for /check, impl_services_test.go for /services - Update params.go to handle both heartbeat and pids parameters - Maintain existing CheckResponse format for /check endpoint - Use new ServicesResponse format for /services endpoint
9d780d4
to
43a69bd
Compare
} | ||
if s.shouldIgnoreComm(pid) { | ||
return nil | ||
} |
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.
Why can't these two checks be done in the caller in the core agent?
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.
The ignored PID has indeed its place in the CA. I left shouldIgnoreComm in SP on purpose though, since it requires moving the config option from SP to the CA, and I think that keep be done in a later PR.
923b5a8
to
f7e9df6
Compare
f7e9df6
to
e729a82
Compare
What does this PR do?
Adds a new
/services
endpoint to the discovery module that accept explicit PID lists and bypasses the port retry logic used by the existing/check
endpoint.Motivation
DSCVR-134
Describe how you validated your changes
Change covered by unit tests
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes