[OTEL-2317] Add status section for OTel Agent #32938
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
team/opentelemetry
liustanley
added
changelog/no-changelog
qa/no-code-change
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: inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=54761009 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit e75203f |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 22c847f Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.95 | [+0.92, +0.99] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.32 | [+0.25, +0.39] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.30 | [-0.61, +1.21] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.12 | [-0.71, +0.95] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.81, +0.94] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.75, +0.82] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.78, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.02, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.70, +0.68] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.65, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.28, +0.25] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.08 | [-0.87, +0.71] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.09 | [-0.56, +0.38] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.18 | [-0.28, -0.08] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.19 | [-0.26, -0.12] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.36 | [-4.41, +1.69] | 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 memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, 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_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 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_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: 22c847f
|
liustanley
changed the title
| if err := yaml.Unmarshal([]byte(extensionResp.RuntimeConfig), &runtimeConfig); err != nil { | ||
| return "", err | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Out for my curiosity, could we avoid this second yaml parse of the HTTP body? I imagine that we are returning string representation of the extension config, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're returning string representation of the extension config but it's pretty difficult to parse in string form due to formatting and the non-unique key names
| receiverStatus: map[string]interface{}{ | ||
| "spans": 0.0, | ||
| "metrics": 0.0, | ||
| "logs": 0.0, | ||
| "refused_spans": 0.0, | ||
| "refused_metrics": 0.0, | ||
| "refused_logs": 0.0, | ||
| }, | ||
| exporterStatus: map[string]interface{}{ | ||
| "spans": 0.0, | ||
| "metrics": 0.0, | ||
| "logs": 0.0, | ||
| "failed_spans": 0.0, | ||
| "failed_metrics": 0.0, | ||
| "failed_logs": 0.0, | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are keeping these two map in memory for the duration of the Agent process. Seeing that we do not update them, but rather reset them every time we display the status I think it would be interesting rather than keeping as part of the statusProvider struct to create them on every request. That was the garbage collector can reclaim them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I considered doing this but not all of the prometheus metrics are guaranteed to be received by the endpoint (e.g. if the otel agent container restarts, the prometheus metric for spans isn't sent until the otel agent receives its first traces). In these instances, I think it would make sense to display the last reported value in the status instead of "0"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the explanation. In the case of a restart would the spans metric from the Otel agent would restart as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes it would. I think there may be other cases though where prometheus metrics don't get received
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
Adds a new status section for the otel agent in the core agent status command. The status component is implemented in
comp/otelcol/statusand is based on the trace agent status component.The new status section has the following template:
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Run otel-agent and core agent side by side, and run
./bin/agent/agent status -c datadog.yamlPossible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes
I was having trouble testing the HTML status locally, if anyone knows how to test this. I couldn't see my changes with
datadog-agent launch-gui.