[AGNT-338] Implement eviction logic for pattern#45059
Conversation
837d790 to
7eb806d
Compare
7eb806d to
2bc506d
Compare
f15b55f to
109c749
Compare
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
29 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
On-wire sizes (compressed)
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 2bc506d Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -3.16 | [-6.06, -0.26] | 1 | Logs |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | +1.19 | [+0.97, +1.41] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | +0.64 | [+0.48, +0.81] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.43 | [+0.38, +0.47] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | +0.39 | [+0.16, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.21 | [+0.16, +0.27] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | +0.18 | [+0.08, +0.28] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.09 | [-0.43, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.33, +0.45] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [+0.01, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.38, +0.43] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 | ingress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.11, +0.14] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.13, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.10, +0.09] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -0.01 | [-0.08, +0.06] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -0.01 | [-0.07, +0.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | -0.05 | [-0.25, +0.15] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.06 | [-0.10, -0.02] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | -0.13 | [-0.28, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | -0.19 | [-0.25, -0.12] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.25 | [-0.32, -0.17] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | -0.48 | [-0.70, -0.26] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.70 | [-2.16, +0.76] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -3.16 | [-6.06, -0.26] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
| 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 | 9/10 | 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".
Replicate Execution Details
We run multiple replicates for each experiment/variant. However, we allow replicates to be automatically retried if there are any failures, up to 8 times, at which point the replicate is marked dead and we are unable to run analysis for the entire experiment. We call each of these attempts at running replicates a replicate execution. This section lists all replicate executions that failed due to the target crashing or being oom killed.
Note: In the below tables we bucket failures by experiment, variant, and failure type. For each of these buckets we list out the replicate indexes that failed with an annotation signifying how many times said replicate failed with the given failure mode. In the below example the baseline variant of the experiment named experiment_with_failures had two replicates that failed by oom kills. Replicate 0, which failed 8 executions, and replicate 1 which failed 6 executions, all with the same failure mode.
| Experiment | Variant | Replicates | Failure | Logs | Debug Dashboard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| experiment_with_failures | baseline | 0 (x8) 1 (x6) | Oom killed | Debug Dashboard |
The debug dashboard links will take you to a debugging dashboard specifically designed to investigate replicate execution failures.
❌ Retried Profiling Replicate Execution Failures (target internal profiling)
Note: Profiling replicas may still be executing. See the debug dashboard for up to date status.
| Experiment | Variant | Replicates | Failure | Debug Dashboard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| quality_gate_idle_all_features | baseline | 11 (x4) | Oom killed | Debug Dashboard |
| quality_gate_idle_all_features | comparison | 11 (x3) | Oom killed | Debug Dashboard |
CI Pass/Fail Decision
❌ Failed. Some Quality Gates were violated.
- 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 lost_bytes: 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 memory_usage: 9/10 replicas passed. Failed 1 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, 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.
109c749 to
d70a316
Compare
3c31fbe to
afdc8e1
Compare
…eviction strategies
d70a316 to
9a9eb73
Compare
Requirements:
a. A superficial investigation to expected usage and savings should be performed on staging.
b. If, for example, we tend to see several orders of magnitude log dropoff after the 10 most common patterns then we might make different thresholds than if we see the same dropoff only after 800 patterns.
a. This might take the form of a max count of patterns rather than a byte-sized limit, since we can bound the size of log lines to a known upper value.
a. count-min sketch? - more memory usage but less likely to cause constant rule flakes
b. smallest count in timeframe? - more memory efficient but more likely to flake on the smallest rule
c. other?