-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
[DJM] Enable GPU integration for Databricks cluster if env. var is present #37682
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?
Conversation
910937b
to
7933d4a
Compare
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 0b19806 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +1.67 | [+0.82, +2.51] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +1.63 | [-1.40, +4.67] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | +0.84 | [+0.70, +0.99] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.62 | [+0.50, +0.74] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.07 | [-0.49, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.55, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.55, +0.58] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.22, +0.25] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.25, +0.26] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.56, +0.55] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.03, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.58, +0.54] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.65, +0.59] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.09 | [-0.67, +0.49] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.17 | [-0.23, -0.11] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.17 | [-0.23, -0.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | -0.31 | [-0.47, -0.15] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | -0.60 | [-0.72, -0.48] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -0.60 | [-0.68, -0.53] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.98 | [-1.11, -0.84] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | -1.29 | [-1.42, -1.16] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.55 | [-4.26, +1.15] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -1.61 | [-1.67, -1.56] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 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_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 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 |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 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
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, 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: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
7877f63
to
4724c2a
Compare
4724c2a
to
e93fca7
Compare
e93fca7
to
030f95f
Compare
030f95f
to
87d31dc
Compare
87d31dc
to
9b390fc
Compare
892fa09
to
9510799
Compare
9510799
to
26ed040
Compare
What does this PR do?
This PR adds the GPU agent integration configuration to the databricks install scripts if the environment variable
GPU_MONITORING_ENABLED
is present.Motivation
This is mainly for one customer, T-Mobile. They spin up 15K+ databricks clusters every day (!!), and most, if not all, are GPU-enabled instances.
They are certain that they are wasting a lot of resources on provisioning GPU-enabled instances that don't need to be there, or that don't need to be GPU enabled. They are currently trialing Data Jobs Monitoring, and if the deals goes through (which is looking like it will), GPU monitoring is a must for them.
We made a demo of GPU Monitoring on Databricks clusters using a duct-taped init bash script on one of our own Databricks workspace, after seeing it, they expressed interest in trying this out themselves.
To simplify the configuration for them we are doing in the installer. However we don't want all customers to always have the integration enabled. It's a similar case to #37089, while the work is direct result of this customer's interest, it is also useful for other customers.
Describe how you validated your changes
In a similar fashion that we allow customers to opt-in to Databricks logs collection, we want to allow them to opt-in to GPU monitoring.
This is done through the addition of an environment variable. While customers using the "Manual" version of the databricks integration can modify init-script(s) themselves, we can also do follow-up work to make the GPU integration configurable via the Integration tile UI for customers on the "Managed" version of the databricks integration (see how we can dynamically do that here)
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
The only drawback is that this might end up unused, however considering trends around running ML workloads on databricks, that's very unlikely.
Additional Notes