-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
APM: wait to shutdown trace-agent components #37742
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
…rocessed to avoid lost data and panics
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Approved with a minor suggestion for style, thanks!
--- | ||
fixes: | ||
- | | ||
APM: Fix an issue where the trace-agent could panic during shutdown trying to obfuscate a sql payload. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
APM: Fix an issue where the trace-agent could panic during shutdown trying to obfuscate a sql payload. | |
APM: Fix an issue where the trace-agent could panic during shutdown trying to obfuscate a SQL payload. |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 87af075 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | +0.64 | [+0.50, +0.78] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | +0.57 | [+0.46, +0.69] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.54 | [+0.47, +0.61] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.48 | [+0.32, +0.64] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.29 | [+0.21, +0.37] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.26 | [-0.61, +1.14] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | +0.16 | [+0.03, +0.28] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.09 | [-0.50, +0.68] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | +0.04 | [-0.01, +0.09] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.55, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.55, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.59, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.02, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.57, +0.57] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.29, +0.28] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.26, +0.22] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.12 | [-0.76, +0.52] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.16 | [-0.78, +0.46] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.33 | [-0.41, -0.25] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.68 | [-0.83, -0.53] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -0.76 | [-0.83, -0.70] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.42 | [-4.15, +1.30] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -4.03 | [-7.04, -1.02] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 0/10 | |
✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 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_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.
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
Wait to shutdown until we've processed everything - otherwise we can lose data during the shutdown process and even panic due to trying to use the obfuscation cache concurrently while it's being closed
What does this PR do?
Add coordination so that we wait for active
Process
calls to complete before shutting down all the rest of the agent components.Motivation
Ideally we don't want to lose data, and we definitely don't want to panic (even if it only happens during shutdown)
Describe how you validated your changes
New unit test here catches this failure quite well
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
This could potentially lengthen the shutdown process, however this is in an effort to reduce lost data / panics so it seems worthwhile.
Additional Notes