-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
[APMLP-876] Add config variables for imageresolver.cache TTL and enable/disable gradual rollout
#46195
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
imageresolver.cache TTL and enable/disable gradual rolloutimageresolver.cache TTL and enable/disable gradual rollout
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
28 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
On-wire sizes (compressed)
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 0134072 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.41 | [-2.78, +3.60] | 1 | Logs |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | +1.04 | [+0.97, +1.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | +0.98 | [+0.77, +1.19] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.67 | [+0.61, +0.74] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.45 | [+0.41, +0.50] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.41 | [-2.78, +3.60] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | +0.19 | [-0.02, +0.40] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | +0.12 | [-0.09, +0.33] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.41, +0.54] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.06 | [-0.10, +0.22] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.00, +0.09] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | +0.03 | [-0.02, +0.08] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | +0.02 | [-0.14, +0.17] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.12, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.12, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.42, +0.41] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.40, +0.38] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.09, +0.08] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.11 | [-0.14, -0.07] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.15 | [-0.20, -0.10] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | -0.27 | [-0.50, -0.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -0.57 | [-0.65, -0.49] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | -0.74 | [-0.85, -0.63] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.32 | [-2.83, +0.19] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | 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_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 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
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 memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, 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_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.
| defer r.mu.RUnlock() | ||
|
|
||
| if len(r.imageMappings) == 0 { | ||
| log.Debugf("Cache empty, no resolution available") |
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.
This is so disruptive in reading the failed test logs, I can only imagine it's just as disruptive for real services. Removing 😅
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.
Fair - this seems like valid/ "expected" behavior so probably no need to report it.
gabedos
left a comment
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.
Using config options for imageresolver cache lgtm
maycmlee
left a comment
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.
Couple of small edits, but approving to not block merge.
releasenotes/notes/add-tag-based-gradual-rollout-configs-96b7d2dbc758718b.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
releasenotes/notes/add-tag-based-gradual-rollout-configs-96b7d2dbc758718b.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: May Lee <may.lee@datadoghq.com>
mtoffl01
left a comment
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
| defer r.mu.RUnlock() | ||
|
|
||
| if len(r.imageMappings) == 0 { | ||
| log.Debugf("Cache empty, no resolution available") |
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.
Fair - this seems like valid/ "expected" behavior so probably no need to report it.
| return NewNoOpResolver() | ||
| } | ||
| if cfg.RCClient == nil || reflect.ValueOf(cfg.RCClient).IsNil() { | ||
| log.Debugf("No remote config client available") |
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.
Nit: Not directly related to these changes, but would be nice to get more specific (about the impact) on this log as well.
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.
Yeah spoiler alert... I'm going to remove all of this remote config based code in a subsequent PR 😅 So it'll go away in a bit
| InitRetryDelay: 1 * time.Second, | ||
| BucketID: calculateRolloutBucket(cfg.GetString("api_key")), | ||
| DigestCacheTTL: 1 * time.Hour, // DEV: Make this configurable | ||
| DigestCacheTTL: cfg.GetDuration("admission_controller.auto_instrumentation.gradual_rollout.cache_ttl_hours") * time.Hour, |
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.
Are you sure you want to lock in to hours here? Is there a case where a user might want a finer grained window?
Before these changes, DigestCacheTTL was just of type time.Duration; with these changes, it will always be on the order of hours.
If it's unlikely a user will care, leave as is.
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.
Yeah good call out. I just specified this as hours so it was human-readable when you configured it 🤔 I figured setting a TTL by minutes wouldn't be a very common use case...?
|
/merge |
|
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings. Use ⏳ Processing |
What does this PR do?
Adds two new configuration values to support tag-based gradual rollout:
admission_controller.auto_instrumentation.gradual_rollout.enabled(default:true)false, will not attempt any image resolution at all (hence, gradual rollout will be disabled)admission_controller.auto_instrumentation.gradual_rollout.cache_ttl_hours(default: 1)Motivation
The motivation of adding these configuration values is to:
admission_controller.auto_instrumentation.gradual_rollout.enabledtofalse, and cutting a new patch release. As we move away from the remote configuration implementation of gradual rollout, this is the closest we can get to "turning off" gradual rollout from our end.imageresolver.cache, in the case that the default value we provide is not appropriate for a specific customer.Describe how you validated your changes
Updated unit tests, local E2E testing with
injector-dev.Additional Notes