-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
AMLII-2249 - fortify log tailer pipeline for journald and windows events #33382
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=54124939 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit bb1f113 |
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 45ceeac Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +2.23 | [-0.85, +5.32] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +1.57 | [+1.51, +1.64] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.63 | [+0.56, +0.69] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.36 | [+0.30, +0.41] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.09 | [-0.37, +0.54] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.08 | [-0.71, +0.87] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.07 | [-0.77, +0.92] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.90, +0.95] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.76, +0.80] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.78, +0.81] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.28, +0.29] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.03, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.65, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.84, +0.72] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.99 | [-1.02, -0.95] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -2.13 | [-3.01, -1.25] | 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_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_logs, 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_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.
Pass the specified tailers through a no-op line handler, as the messages these tailers produce are not viable candidates for truncation. Develop and use a new NoopDecoder constructor to make it clear that these entities do not yet have meaningful work being performed on them in the decoder flow.
73fbb6e
to
bb1f113
Compare
What does this PR do?
Explicitly prevent the journald and windows event tailers from being routed through a line handler
Motivation
The two tailers being modified receive no functional benefit from routing through a line handler, and may be errantly marked as Truncated if they ever are. Making an explicit no-op handler both increases the clarity of the code and reduces the chance for unfortunate and unforeseen side effects.
Describe how you validated your changes
Existing automated tests already verify that a message can be cleanly passed from the tailer all the way through the decoder. Additional sanity checking was performed to guarantee that over-large messages were not subject to (invalid) truncation labels and were successfully able to pass through the pipe.
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes