- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 1.4k
APM: no panic on forwarding transport errors #42339
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
Conversation
| Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
 | 
| Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: eadd587 Optimization Goals: ✅ Improvement(s) detected
 
 | 
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links | 
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.07 | [-1.05, +0.92] | 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 | +2.06 | [+1.86, +2.27] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard | 
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | +0.68 | [+0.48, +0.87] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.43 | [+0.37, +0.50] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard | 
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.40 | [+0.33, +0.46] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +0.24 | [-2.55, +3.03] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard | 
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | +0.17 | [+0.04, +0.29] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.15 | [+0.02, +0.27] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | +0.06 | [+0.02, +0.10] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.55, +0.64] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.22, +0.24] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.61, +0.60] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.65, +0.57] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.07 | [-1.05, +0.92] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.09 | [-0.68, +0.51] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.09 | [-0.14, -0.04] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard | 
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.16 | [-0.21, -0.11] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | -0.21 | [-0.27, -0.15] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | -0.29 | [-0.44, -0.14] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | -0.49 | [-0.62, -0.35] | 1 | Logs | 
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | -1.10 | [-1.26, -0.94] | 1 | Logs | 
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -6.88 | [-7.39, -6.36] | 1 | Logs | 
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_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 memory_usage: 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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 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.
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.
💯
| /merge | 
| View all feedbacks in Devflow UI. 
 
 The expected merge time in  
 | 
### What does this PR do? Before this change we'd close the response body for the request that we RoundTrip which violates the contract of the RoundTripper used by the ReverseProxy. The result was that all the proxied requests looked like they had failed. In practice they hadn't, but it lead to quite a bit of scary logging, and it prevented the client of the proxy from actually getting the response. Also, limit the rate of error logging when sending to secondary endpoints. ### Motivation We recently started using multiple endpoints in some clusters and observed a lot of these logs (this code used to never be exercised). Worse yet, this had caused panics (#42339). ### Describe how you validated your changes Testing. Co-authored-by: andrew.werner <[email protected]>
What does this PR do?
The http roundtrip transport can return a nil response for certain kinds of errors. When this happens our attempt to close the response body results in a nil pointer exception. We don't want to crash.
Motivation
panicking is no good for software (and people too probably)
Describe how you validated your changes
New unit tests (Written with AI assistance but reviewed by me (a human))
Additional Notes