datadog-agent
datadog-agent copied to clipboard
Componentize the snmp subcommands
Componentize the "walk" and "scan" SNMP commands. This is to allow registering a new "AgentTaskListener" with remote-config that will later call the RunDeviceScan method of the component
Go Package Import Differences
Baseline: b2159bf6c84fc845b5c1a39a1f838d37d4a29bce Comparison: 3815f1146a9d21e4d6542ffe2142fb16e3787185
| binary | os | arch | change |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | linux | amd64 | +3, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/def
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/fx
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/impl
|
| agent | linux | arm64 | +3, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/def
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/fx
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/impl
|
| agent | windows | amd64 | +3, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/def
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/fx
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/impl
|
| agent | darwin | amd64 | +3, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/def
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/fx
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/impl
|
| agent | darwin | arm64 | +3, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/def
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/fx
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/impl
|
| iot-agent | linux | amd64 | +3, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/def
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/fx
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/impl
|
| iot-agent | linux | arm64 | +3, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/def
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/fx
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/impl
|
| heroku-agent | linux | amd64 | +3, -0
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/def
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/fx
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/snmpscan/impl
|
Great work on creating the new component 🎉 👏
Left a few suggestions. Also, would be great if we could add test for the new component 😄
Regression Detector
Regression Detector Results
Run ID: eb04d50d-1845-493f-b6a2-2b30ad24efd5 Metrics dashboard Target profiles
Baseline: b2159bf6c84fc845b5c1a39a1f838d37d4a29bce Comparison: 3815f1146a9d21e4d6542ffe2142fb16e3787185
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
No significant changes in experiment optimization goals
Confidence level: 90.00% Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%
There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +2.99 | [+2.85, +3.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | +1.41 | [-1.05, +3.87] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +1.04 | [+0.97, +1.10] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.36 | [-0.45, +1.17] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.24 | [-0.49, +0.96] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.09 | [-0.38, +0.57] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.08 | [-0.16, +0.33] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.22, +0.22] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.34, +0.33] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.20, +0.15] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.14, +0.07] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | idle | memory utilization | -0.55 | [-0.60, -0.50] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | -0.67 | [-3.31, +1.98] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | idle_all_features | memory utilization | -2.62 | [-2.74, -2.49] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
Bounds Checks
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 0/10 |
| ❌ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 0/10 |
| ❌ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 0/10 |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
| ✅ | idle | memory_usage | 10/10 |
| ✅ | idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 |
Explanation
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".
Test changes on VM
Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:
inv create-vm --pipeline-id=46381320 --os-family=ubuntu
Note: This applies to commit 3815f114
/merge
:steam_locomotive: MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue
The median merge time in main is 25m.
Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!