-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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] sysctl_snapshot event #34599
[CWS] sysctl_snapshot event #34599
Conversation
c8b822e
to
d1415b8
Compare
7306616
to
baf55a5
Compare
d1415b8
to
9697e68
Compare
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 71deb82 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.79 | [+0.74, +0.85] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.73, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.05 | [-0.01, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.80, +0.90] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.26, +0.28] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.66, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.78, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.03, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.80, +0.77] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.02 | [-0.04, +0.01] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.65, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.03 | [-0.07, +0.00] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.84, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.08 | [-0.54, +0.39] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.39 | [-3.28, +2.51] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.62 | [-1.51, +0.28] | 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_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.
- 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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
73c4cd6
to
f61b324
Compare
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=57753366 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit b49114c |
Static quality checks ✅Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
baf55a5
to
95d38d8
Compare
f61b324
to
ef84786
Compare
e6f8856
to
9fee0f0
Compare
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.
looks good from agent configuration
9fee0f0
to
e8fd6c8
Compare
95d38d8
to
811d364
Compare
a29b0cd
to
6e59bcf
Compare
6e59bcf
to
b49114c
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.
The median merge time in
|
What does this PR do?
This PR introduces the
sysctl_snapshot
event which snapshots periodically the system control parameters in/proc/sys
(and the few security relevant ones in/sys/kernel/security
) and send the output to Datadog.2 new parameters were added in order to control this periodical snapshot:
runtime_security_config.sysctl.enabled
: controls if the system controlsysctl
event should be manually disabled.runtime_security_config.sysctl.snapshot.enabled
: controls if the system control parameter periodical snapshot should be activated.runtime_security_config.sysctl.snapshot.period
: controls the period at which thesysctl_snapshot
events should be sent.runtime_security_config.sysctl.snapshot.ignored_base_names
: defines a list of system control names that should be scrubbed and not sent to Datadog.Motivation
This PR introduces the
sysctl_snapshot
event which completes the requirements for tracking sysctl parameters (along with thesysctl
event type introduced in #34482).Describe how you validated your changes
Enable the feature with the configuration parameter, reduce the period and start the agent.
Wait for the configured duration.
You should see a
sysctl_snapshot
event sent to Datadog.