[USMON-1085] - USM to report redis network calls #35922
Conversation
|
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 7513828 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +1.50 | [+1.45, +1.55] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | +1.12 | [+1.08, +1.16] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | +0.86 | [+0.81, +0.90] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.64 | [+0.50, +0.78] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.59 | [+0.54, +0.65] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.15 | [+0.06, +0.24] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.12 | [-0.52, +0.76] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | +0.11 | [-0.01, +0.23] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.09 | [-0.58, +0.76] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.63, +0.68] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.27, +0.29] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.23, +0.23] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.61, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.64, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.68, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.69, +0.60] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | -0.24 | [-0.37, -0.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | -0.29 | [-0.41, -0.16] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | -0.48 | [-0.62, -0.33] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.59 | [-3.31, +2.13] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.71 | [-4.44, +3.02] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.78 | [-2.63, -0.92] | 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, 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 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_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.
github-actions
bot
added
component/system-probe
long review
Saarshta
added
team/usm
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: dda inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=64058245 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit 304c944 |
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
Saarshta
changed the title
Saarshta
changed the title
|
@Saarshta can you add a link to the staging tests? |
| // KeyName returns the key name of the key. | ||
| func (e *EventWrapper) KeyName() string { | ||
| if !e.keyNameSet { | ||
| e.keyName = string(getFragment(&e.Tx)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: can be done a future PR
we should be using string interning here to spare redundant memory
Saarshta
force-pushed
the
saar.shtalryd/redis
branch
from
4b9ca62 to
00b1df9
Compare
|
/merge |
|
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
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.
devflow unqueued this merge request: It did not become mergeable within the expected time |
|
/merge |
|
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
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.
The expected merge time in
|
What does this PR do?
Adds USM support for Redis.
We only support GET / SET commands for now.
Followups include:
Motivation
Expanding USM to support additional protocols.
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes
When processing Redis stats, we hold a map with boolean keys and stats values. The keys mark whether or not an error occurred. When encoding our data, we build a map of int32 keys. This is in preparation to report error types, and not just whether errors occurred or not. There will be a followup PR for that.