Skip to content

Conversation

@liustanley
Copy link
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Updates documentation for compute_stats_by_span_kind based on changes from #22163. Also adds clarification in previous release note to address similar config options.

Motivation

Clarification on top-level spans update.

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

@liustanley liustanley requested review from a team as code owners March 20, 2024 20:36
@liustanley liustanley requested a review from songy23 March 20, 2024 20:36
@liustanley liustanley added the team/opentelemetry OpenTelemetry team label Mar 20, 2024
@liustanley liustanley added this to the 7.53.0 milestone Mar 20, 2024
@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Mar 20, 2024

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=30550328 --os-family=ubuntu

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Mar 20, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 48580cb9-dc70-4c16-896b-87ada22cdc9e
Baseline: 4177771
Comparison: 3b821bf

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.

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI
file_to_blackhole % cpu utilization +2.58 [-3.73, +8.89]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI
file_to_blackhole % cpu utilization +2.58 [-3.73, +8.89]
pycheck_1000_100byte_tags % cpu utilization +2.30 [-2.63, +7.23]
idle memory utilization +1.27 [+1.23, +1.31]
basic_py_check % cpu utilization +0.84 [-1.59, +3.26]
trace_agent_json ingress throughput +0.03 [-0.02, +0.07]
trace_agent_msgpack ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.00, +0.00]
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.20, +0.20]
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.02, +0.01]
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput -0.04 [-0.47, +0.40]
file_tree memory utilization -0.23 [-0.34, -0.13]
process_agent_standard_check memory utilization -0.35 [-0.40, -0.31]
process_agent_standard_check_with_stats memory utilization -0.43 [-0.48, -0.39]
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.46 [-0.55, -0.37]
process_agent_real_time_mode memory utilization -0.63 [-0.68, -0.59]
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -1.62 [-4.34, +1.10]

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:

  1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

  2. 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.

  3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

Copy link
Contributor

@maycmlee maycmlee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Left a couple of suggestions!

@liustanley liustanley requested a review from maycmlee March 21, 2024 14:44
@liustanley
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Mar 21, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue

This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Mar 21, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue

Added to the queue.

There are 2 builds ahead of this PR! (estimated merge in less than 28m)

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 21bf096 into main Mar 21, 2024
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the stanley.liu/edit-compute-stats-by-span-kind branch March 21, 2024 16:31
@liustanley liustanley restored the stanley.liu/edit-compute-stats-by-span-kind branch March 29, 2024 16:33
liustanley added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 29, 2024
@pducolin pducolin added qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation and removed qa/skip-qa labels Apr 3, 2024
alexgallotta pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 9, 2024
* Edit docs and release note with clarification

* Update release note

* Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: May Lee <[email protected]>

---------

Co-authored-by: May Lee <[email protected]>
@dd-devflow dd-devflow bot deleted the stanley.liu/edit-compute-stats-by-span-kind branch September 21, 2024 00:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation team/opentelemetry OpenTelemetry team

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants