-
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
[network path] Update dynamic path limits #33757
Conversation
Static quality checks ✅Please find below the results from static quality gates Info
|
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
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=55016644 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit cb99faf |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 00bbb32 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +1.34 | [-1.68, +4.35] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.81, +0.92] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.76, +0.85] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.68, +0.72] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.01, +0.04] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.64, +0.64] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.30, +0.30] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.90, +0.84] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.11 | [-0.59, +0.36] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.13 | [-0.91, +0.66] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.39 | [-1.17, +0.40] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.47 | [-0.55, -0.38] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.61 | [-0.66, -0.57] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.84 | [-0.90, -0.78] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -1.21 | [-1.29, -1.14] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.37 | [-2.25, -0.49] | 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_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, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
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.
can we consts that declared on the package?
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.
@AmitaiBl ,
Those default values are currently only used in config.go and not needed elsewhere (besides tests), I think it's fine to just keep the literal here, similar to many other cases in this config.go file.
About using the literal values in tests, I would preferred to use literal to check value, if we use constants that will make IMHO the test less reliable (having to rewrite the literal default value is a kind of double writing in accounting, it helps you verify/sanity check)
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.
@AmitaiBl It's likely a matter of preference here,
so let me know if that's blocker, if so, I try to adjust :)
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.
LGTM for agent-configuration
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
[network path] Update dynamic path limits
Motivation
High channel size can lead to higher memory usage.
User can still increase manually limits if needed.
We might consider in the future to set higher limits if needed (if too many customer need to manually bump the limit).
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes