Skip to content
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

[CWS] cleanup some logs and useless checks in the windows probe #31020

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 13, 2024

Conversation

paulcacheux
Copy link
Contributor

What does this PR do?

This PR cleans up a few logs, and remove a few useless checks that are not needed.

Motivation

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv create-vm --pipeline-id=48885252 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 31d107e

Copy link

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: a4e6e48a-2d94-4e95-b75b-19e64ebb7ca4

Baseline: 8a906d4
Comparison: 31d107e
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +1.50 [+0.83, +2.16] 1 Logs
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +0.97 [-2.47, +4.41] 1 Logs
basic_py_check % cpu utilization +0.56 [-3.23, +4.36] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.29 [+0.24, +0.34] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +0.29 [-0.44, +1.01] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput +0.21 [-0.28, +0.70] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput +0.16 [-0.33, +0.66] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput +0.03 [-0.27, +0.33] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.08, +0.09] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.00 [-0.45, +0.45] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.02 [-0.07, +0.02] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput -0.06 [-0.25, +0.13] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput -0.10 [-0.35, +0.14] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.13 [-0.26, -0.00] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -0.51 [-0.61, -0.42] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency lost_bytes 7/10
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency lost_bytes 8/10
quality_gate_idle memory_usage 8/10 bounds checks dashboard
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 memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
quality_gate_idle_all_features 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:

  1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

  2. 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.

  3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

@paulcacheux
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Nov 13, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-11-13 13:12:12 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 23m.


2024-11-13 13:12:14 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 23m.

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 410d6e0 into main Nov 13, 2024
232 of 233 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the paulcacheux/cleanup-windows-logs-checks branch November 13, 2024 13:37
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.61.0 milestone Nov 13, 2024
@paulcacheux paulcacheux added the qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests label Nov 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog component/system-probe qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly team/agent-security
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants