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

[AGENTRUN-142] compute instanceID in the server for configcheck command and configcheck flare #34321

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 25, 2025

Conversation

GustavoCaso
Copy link
Member

@GustavoCaso GustavoCaso commented Feb 21, 2025

What does this PR do?

Modify the config-check response to include the checkID of all the integration config instances.

Motivation

Ensure the instance ID from the status and configcheck command matches. Prior to this change the instance ID in the configcheck command was wrong. The problem is that we compute the check ID in the client, using scrubbed integration config information. That causes the information to be different from the status command

Describe how you validated your changes

  • Ensure the status and configcheck command display the same check ID
  • Ensure the config-check.log from the flare matches the check ID as well.

Screenshot provides showing the checks ID for the disk and ntp check between the status and configchec command

image image

Also, uploaded the configcheck.log file from a flare I requested locally

config-check.log

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@GustavoCaso GustavoCaso changed the title compute instanceID in the server for configcheck command and configch… compute instanceID in the server for configcheck command and configcheck flare Feb 21, 2025
@GustavoCaso GustavoCaso changed the title compute instanceID in the server for configcheck command and configcheck flare [AGENTRUN-142] compute instanceID in the server for configcheck command and configcheck flare Feb 21, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added team/container-platform The Container Platform Team long review PR is complex, plan time to review it labels Feb 21, 2025
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 21, 2025

Uncompressed package size comparison

Comparison with ancestor ef7a913a0322e789822800b939b29393ac7c9351

Diff per package
package diff status size ancestor threshold
datadog-heroku-agent-amd64-deb 0.01MB ⚠️ 446.01MB 446.00MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 61.90MB 61.90MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 61.97MB 61.97MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 61.97MB 61.97MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-arm64-deb 0.00MB 59.14MB 59.14MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.00MB 59.21MB 59.21MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.00MB 867.77MB 867.77MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 868.69MB 868.69MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-arm64-deb 0.00MB 858.02MB 858.02MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-amd64-deb 0.00MB 41.39MB 41.39MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 41.47MB 41.47MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 41.47MB 41.47MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-arm64-deb 0.00MB 39.65MB 39.65MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-rpm -0.00MB 878.46MB 878.46MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-suse -0.00MB 878.46MB 878.46MB 0.50MB

Decision

⚠️ Warning

@GustavoCaso GustavoCaso force-pushed the ensure-configcheck-checkID-matches-status branch from 6df3c62 to 2ddd23b Compare February 21, 2025 17:28
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ func GetClusterChecks(w io.Writer, checkName string) error {
if len(cr.Dangling) > 0 {
fmt.Fprintf(w, "=== %s configurations ===\n", color.RedString("Unassigned"))
for _, c := range cr.Dangling {
flare.PrintConfig(w, c, checkName)
flare.PrintClusterCheckConfig(w, c, checkName)
Copy link
Member Author

@GustavoCaso GustavoCaso Feb 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@clamoriniere For this PR I decided to leave the cluster check v1 untouched. We currently do not scrub the integration config information, which is something that we need to do, but it would require more changes. This PR is already big enough, that I think is best to limit the size.

Once we merge this one and validate everything works as expected we can open a new PR that focus on scrubbing the integration config and precompute the check ID for the cluster check. Once we do that, we can unify the printing function into a single one as we had before

Copy link
Contributor

@clamoriniere clamoriniere Feb 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good, But if the difference is only scrubbing can we use the same function and add an option to decide if the function scrub or not?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The difference is not just the scrubbing, but the actual response from the server. The cluster agent uses a different struct for the response. So the two functions have different signature. I rather not increase the scope of the PR and work on the cluster agent on a separate PR 😄

@GustavoCaso GustavoCaso marked this pull request as ready for review February 21, 2025 17:37
@GustavoCaso GustavoCaso requested review from a team as code owners February 21, 2025 17:37
Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Feb 21, 2025

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 31f3502d-39e5-4e32-92a4-7d7eab3c5ddf

Baseline: ef7a913
Comparison: 538a197
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput +0.47 [-0.35, +1.28] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput +0.37 [-0.10, +0.84] 1 Logs
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization +0.28 [-2.73, +3.29] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization +0.15 [+0.09, +0.21] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.05 [-0.76, +0.86] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput +0.01 [-0.68, +0.71] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.29, +0.29] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 egress throughput -0.00 [-0.81, +0.81] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.02, +0.02] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 egress throughput -0.01 [-0.83, +0.82] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput -0.01 [-0.64, +0.62] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput -0.01 [-0.80, +0.77] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.21 [-0.25, -0.17] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -0.40 [-0.46, -0.35] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -0.58 [-1.44, +0.28] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -1.19 [-1.25, -1.13] 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:

  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".

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 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.
  • 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.

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 24, 2025

Test changes on VM

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

inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=56735063 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 538a197

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 24, 2025

Static quality checks ✅

Please find below the results from static quality gates

Successful checks

Info

Result Quality gate On disk size On disk size limit On wire size On wire size limit
static_quality_gate_agent_deb_amd64 839.8MiB 847.49MiB 202.99MiB 212.33MiB
static_quality_gate_agent_deb_arm64 829.61MiB 836.66MiB 182.46MiB 192.5MiB
static_quality_gate_agent_rpm_amd64 839.79MiB 847.82MiB 206.18MiB 215.76MiB
static_quality_gate_agent_rpm_arm64 829.6MiB 836.66MiB 185.31MiB 194.24MiB
static_quality_gate_agent_suse_amd64 839.79MiB 847.82MiB 206.18MiB 215.76MiB
static_quality_gate_agent_suse_arm64 829.6MiB 836.66MiB 185.31MiB 194.24MiB
static_quality_gate_dogstatsd_deb_amd64 39.55MiB 49.7MiB 10.55MiB 20.6MiB
static_quality_gate_dogstatsd_deb_arm64 37.89MiB 48.1MiB 9.13MiB 19.1MiB
static_quality_gate_dogstatsd_rpm_amd64 39.55MiB 49.7MiB 10.56MiB 20.6MiB
static_quality_gate_dogstatsd_suse_amd64 39.55MiB 49.7MiB 10.56MiB 20.6MiB
static_quality_gate_iot_agent_deb_amd64 59.11MiB 69.0MiB 14.86MiB 24.8MiB
static_quality_gate_iot_agent_deb_arm64 56.47MiB 66.4MiB 12.8MiB 22.8MiB
static_quality_gate_iot_agent_rpm_amd64 59.11MiB 69.0MiB 14.88MiB 24.8MiB
static_quality_gate_iot_agent_rpm_arm64 56.47MiB 66.4MiB 12.83MiB 22.8MiB
static_quality_gate_iot_agent_suse_amd64 59.11MiB 69.0MiB 14.88MiB 24.8MiB
static_quality_gate_docker_agent_amd64 924.61MiB 931.7MiB 308.98MiB 318.67MiB
static_quality_gate_docker_agent_arm64 937.7MiB 944.08MiB 293.99MiB 303.0MiB
static_quality_gate_docker_agent_jmx_amd64 1.1GiB 1.1GiB 384.08MiB 393.75MiB
static_quality_gate_docker_agent_jmx_arm64 1.1GiB 1.1GiB 365.06MiB 373.71MiB
static_quality_gate_docker_dogstatsd_amd64 47.69MiB 57.88MiB 18.25MiB 28.29MiB
static_quality_gate_docker_dogstatsd_arm64 46.08MiB 56.27MiB 17.02MiB 27.06MiB
static_quality_gate_docker_cluster_agent_amd64 264.87MiB 274.78MiB 106.31MiB 116.28MiB
static_quality_gate_docker_cluster_agent_arm64 280.84MiB 290.82MiB 101.15MiB 111.12MiB

@GustavoCaso GustavoCaso added the qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests label Feb 24, 2025
@GustavoCaso GustavoCaso removed the request for review from a team February 25, 2025 08:38
@GustavoCaso
Copy link
Member Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Feb 25, 2025

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
2025-02-25 09:49:09 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge


2025-02-25 09:49:15 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.


2025-02-25 10:46:09 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: merge request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 28m.


2025-02-25 11:15:13 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 58c55c8 into main Feb 25, 2025
248 of 249 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the ensure-configcheck-checkID-matches-status branch February 25, 2025 11:15
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.65.0 milestone Feb 25, 2025
wdhif pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 25, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog long review PR is complex, plan time to review it qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/container-platform The Container Platform Team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants