Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[NDMII-3058] Add rDNS hostname enrichment to SNMP corecheck #30002

Open
wants to merge 17 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[NDMII-3058] Add rDNS hostname enrichment to SNMP corecheck #30002

wants to merge 17 commits into from

Conversation

vicweiss
Copy link
Contributor

@vicweiss vicweiss commented Oct 9, 2024

What does this PR do?

Motivation

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@vicweiss vicweiss changed the title Allow rdsquerier to run in snmp core check [NDMII-3058] Add rDNS hostname enrichment to SNMP corecheck Oct 9, 2024
@cit-pr-commenter cit-pr-commenter
Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Oct 9, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Go Package Import Differences

Baseline: 6cd87f7
Comparison: a456375

binaryosarchchange
cluster-agentlinuxamd64
+4, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/fx
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/impl
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/impl-none
cluster-agentlinuxarm64
+4, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/fx
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/impl
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/impl-none
cluster-agent-cloudfoundrylinuxamd64
+1, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
cluster-agent-cloudfoundrylinuxarm64
+1, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
dogstatsdlinuxamd64
+1, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
dogstatsdlinuxarm64
+1, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
security-agentlinuxamd64
+1, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
security-agentlinuxarm64
+1, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
system-probelinuxamd64
+1, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
system-probelinuxarm64
+1, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
trace-agentlinuxamd64
+1, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
trace-agentlinuxarm64
+1, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def
trace-agentwindowsamd64
+1, -0 
+github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/comp/rdnsquerier/def

@cit-pr-commenter cit-pr-commenter
Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Oct 9, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 4826f584-d946-4c48-b94a-7c73ad0aa281 Metrics dashboard Target profiles

Baseline: 6cd87f7
Comparison: a456375

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
➖ idle_all_features memory utilization +1.47 [+1.35, +1.59] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +1.42 [-1.17, +4.01] 1 Logs
➖ idle memory utilization +0.88 [+0.83, +0.93] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +0.55 [-0.18, +1.27] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.41 [+0.29, +0.52] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.09 [-0.16, +0.33] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.07 [-0.11, +0.25] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.02 [-0.32, +0.37] 1 Logs
➖ tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.01 [-0.23, +0.21] 1 Logs
➖ uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.12, +0.09] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.07 [-0.55, +0.42] 1 Logs
➖ otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput -0.12 [-0.93, +0.68] 1 Logs
➖ basic_py_check % cpu utilization -0.18 [-2.95, +2.59] 1 Logs
➖ tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.24 [-0.29, -0.19] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.97 [-1.02, -0.91] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ file_tree memory utilization -1.65 [-1.78, -1.52] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed
✅ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
✅ idle memory_usage 10/10
✅ idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10
✅ quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10
✅ quality_gate_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:

  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".

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Oct 16, 2024 •
edited
Loading

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=47055072 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit a456375

@vicweiss vicweiss marked this pull request as ready for review October 21, 2024 13:50
@vicweiss vicweiss requested review from a team as code owners October 21, 2024 13:50
buraizu
buraizu requested changes Oct 21, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@buraizu buraizu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks like there's a typo in the release note; please confirm that my suggestion is the correct one.

releasenotes/notes/sndm-rdns-hostname-enrichment-1ca16478f8ebeeac.yaml
---
features:
- |
Added support for enrighing SNMP IPs with hostnames via rDNS lookups
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
Added support for enrighing SNMP IPs with hostnames via rDNS lookups
Added support for enriching SNMP IPs with hostnames through rDNS lookups

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@GustavoCaso GustavoCaso GustavoCaso left review comments

@buraizu buraizu buraizu requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
team/agent-shared-components team/network-device-monitoring
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@vicweiss @GustavoCaso @buraizu