POC remove internal profiling and tracer #33687
Conversation
GustavoCaso
force-pushed
the
poc-remove-go-tracer
branch
from
6ef5424 to
b2214fa
Compare
Go Package Import DifferencesThis comment was omitted because it was over 65,536 characters. Please check the Gitlab Job logs to see its output. |
|
== agent linux/amd64 +0, -77 == == agent linux/arm64 +0, -77 == == agent windows/amd64 +0, -79 == == agent darwin/amd64 +0, -79 == == agent darwin/arm64 +0, -79 == == iot-agent linux/amd64 +0, -90 == == iot-agent linux/arm64 +0, -90 == == heroku-agent linux/amd64 +0, -80 == == cluster-agent linux/amd64 +0, -84 == == cluster-agent linux/arm64 +0, -84 == == cluster-agent-cloudfoundry linux/amd64 +0, -21 == == cluster-agent-cloudfoundry linux/arm64 +0, -21 == == dogstatsd linux/amd64 +0, -20 == == dogstatsd linux/arm64 +0, -20 == == process-agent linux/amd64 +0, -20 == == process-agent linux/arm64 +0, -20 == == process-agent windows/amd64 +0, -20 == == process-agent darwin/amd64 +0, -20 == == process-agent darwin/arm64 +0, -20 == == heroku-process-agent linux/amd64 +0, -20 == == security-agent linux/amd64 +0, -20 == == security-agent linux/arm64 +0, -20 == == security-agent windows/amd64 +0, -20 == == serverless linux/amd64 == == serverless linux/arm64 == == system-probe linux/amd64 +0, -17 == == system-probe linux/arm64 +0, -17 == == system-probe windows/amd64 +0, -19 == == trace-agent linux/amd64 +0, -20 == == trace-agent linux/arm64 +0, -20 == == trace-agent windows/amd64 +0, -20 == == trace-agent darwin/amd64 +0, -20 == == trace-agent darwin/arm64 +0, -20 == == heroku-trace-agent linux/amd64 +0, -20 == |
Static quality checks ✅Please find below the results from static quality gates Info
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: d6ef294 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +1.66 | [-1.39, +4.72] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.21 | [-0.55, +0.98] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.86, +0.95] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.02, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.28, +0.26] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.90, +0.86] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.67, +0.60] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.67, +0.60] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.86, +0.72] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.08 | [-0.96, +0.80] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.23 | [-0.30, -0.16] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.27 | [-0.34, -0.20] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.36 | [-0.83, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.50 | [-0.55, -0.45] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.84 | [-1.71, +0.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.84 | [-0.92, -0.77] | 1 | Logs |
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_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 | |
| ✅ | 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_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- 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 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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
What does this PR do?
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes