-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
fix evtnext timeout issue #42331
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?
fix evtnext timeout issue #42331
Conversation
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: dc243ff Optimization Goals: ✅ Improvement(s) detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +73.31 | [+70.98, +75.64] | 1 | Logs |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +73.31 | [+70.98, +75.64] | 1 | Logs |
| ✅ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +14.98 | [+14.90, +15.06] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.24, +0.24] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.08 | [-0.70, +0.55] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.09 | [-0.71, +0.53] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.18 | [-0.79, +0.42] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.21 | [-0.84, +0.41] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | -0.31 | [-0.51, -0.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | -0.78 | [-0.91, -0.64] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | -1.03 | [-1.15, -0.91] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | -1.14 | [-1.20, -1.08] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | -1.21 | [-1.38, -1.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -1.72 | [-1.77, -1.68] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | -2.40 | [-2.54, -2.27] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | -2.44 | [-2.56, -2.31] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -2.73 | [-2.77, -2.69] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -2.77 | [-2.83, -2.72] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -3.34 | [-3.39, -3.29] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -4.05 | [-6.75, -1.36] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -5.39 | [-5.82, -4.97] | 1 | Logs |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | -7.92 | [-8.09, -7.75] | 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 | 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_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_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.
- 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_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, 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, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
What does this PR do?
Fix issue introduced in 7.70.0 (#39028) that caused the Windows Event Log check and tailer to fail to load with the error
EvtNext failed: This operation returned because the timeout period expired.The fix moves bookmark initialization from the initial setup - which is run once and can cause the check/tailer to fail to start - into the subscription start loop - which is retried on failure. The user (check, tailer) no longer need to handle this bookmark logic, they just provide a
Save/Loadinterface to the subscription.Motivation
https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/browse/WINA-1890
fix bug
Describe how you validated your changes
unit / integration tests
bulk of changes are to test code. Since bookmark logic is now handled by the subscription, I added relevant tests there. They were previously only in check and tailer tests.
Additional Notes
This issue does not affect all Agents, it seems intermittent. It can only affect instances that use
start_mode: nowand do not have a current bookmark, this is what triggers the error from the newFromLatestEventbookmark behavior. The cases we've seen all have a customqueryconfig to match specific events, so it's more likely they won't have an existing bookmark. If theEventLogservice does not respond immediately (timeout of 1 second) then the timeout error is returned.