USM: make the nodejs monitor to a real protocol #34760
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
64e48dd to
d97b6b2
Compare
|
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 57796541 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests: Jobs:
If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help |
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=57796541 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit 65c7265 |
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Static quality checks ❌Please find below the results from static quality gates Error
Gate failure full details
Successful checksInfo
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: bb62438 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +1.12 | [+1.06, +1.17] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.80 | [+0.76, +0.84] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.47 | [+0.44, +0.49] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.25 | [-0.53, +1.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.20 | [-0.27, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.76, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.29, +0.31] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.77, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.66, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.84, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.04, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.63, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.24 | [-1.01, +0.54] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.32 | [-0.37, -0.26] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.53 | [-1.40, +0.34] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -2.28 | [-5.16, +0.60] | 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, 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 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_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.
d97b6b2 to
2136813
Compare
Static quality checks ✅Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
DanielLavie
reviewed
Mar 5, 2025
| attacher *uprobes.UprobeAttacher | ||
| processMonitor *monitor.ProcessMonitor | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func newNodeJSMonitor(c *config.Config, mgr *manager.Manager) (*nodeJSMonitor, error) { | ||
| if !c.EnableNodeJSMonitoring { | ||
| var _ protocols.Protocol = (*nodeJSMonitor)(nil) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's this for? please add a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Verifying we're always implementing the protocol interface
|
Can you provide link to the load test run? |
added to the PR description |
DanielLavie
approved these changes
Mar 5, 2025
|
/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
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do?
Introduces a standalone nodejs protocol, which is not encapsulated inside openssl monitor.
Motivation
clean code and remove complexity from openssl monitor.
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes
https://dddev.datadoghq.com/dashboard/gqu-2wz-asy/usm-performance-evaluation-20?fromUser=true&refresh_mode=paused&tpl_var_base_agent-env%5B0%5D=usmon-907-base&tpl_var_client-service%5B0%5D=node-k6-client-http-tls&tpl_var_compare_agent-env%5B0%5D=usmon-907-new&tpl_var_http.version%5B0%5D=http%2F1.1&tpl_var_kube_cluster_name%5B0%5D=usm2&tpl_var_server-service%5B0%5D=node-httpbin-tls&tpl_var_tls.library%5B0%5D=nodejs&from_ts=1741179302208&to_ts=1741182573478&live=false
Performance left untouched
Memory
cpu
