[release 4.7] Bug 1935605: Adds memory usage to the metadata

[0sewa0]

This PR is a backport of #356
It adds 2 new fields to the metadata (gathers.json).
uptime: the duration since the start of the first gather
memory_alloc: the memory allocated at the time of creating the report. (in bytes)

Some disclaimers:

I intended to have memory usage stats for each gather-function, but it wasn't really viable. The only way I could measure it was by marshaling the produced records, which is not only inefficient but we can just as easily measure the size of the produced archive and get the same idea.
The memory_alloc stat wont show the peak memory allocation. Even if we are only talking about the gather cycle, knowing when to measure to get the max usage is impossible so we would need to monitor the entire process, which would more complex without much benefit IMO. The purpose of this field is to be able to notice if over a long period there might be a memory leak.

Categories

• Bugfix
• Enhancement
• Backporting
• Others (CI, Infrastructure, Documentation)

Sample archive

• path/to/sample_data.json

Documentation

• path/to/documentation.md

Unit Tests

• path/to/file_test.go

Privacy

Yes. There are no sensitive data in the newly collected information.

Changelog

References

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/???
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=???
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/???

[openshift-ci-robot]

@0sewa0: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1935605, which is invalid:

• expected dependent Bugzilla bug 1934112 to be in one of the following states: VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA), but it is ON_QA instead

Comment /bugzilla refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Bugzilla bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

[release 4.7] Bug 1935605: Adds memory usage to the metadata

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[tremes]

/bugzilla refresh

[openshift-ci-robot]

@tremes: This pull request references Bugzilla bug 1935605, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state. The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

6 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target release (4.7.z) matches configured target release for branch (4.7.z)
• bug is in the state NEW, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, ON_DEV, POST, POST)
• dependent bug Bugzilla bug 1934112 is in the state VERIFIED, which is one of the valid states (VERIFIED, RELEASE_PENDING, CLOSED (ERRATA))
• dependent Bugzilla bug 1934112 targets the "4.8.0" release, which is one of the valid target releases: 4.8.0
• bug has dependents

Requesting review from QA contact:
/cc @psimovec

In response to this:

/bugzilla refresh

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[rluders]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: 0sewa0, rluders

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [0sewa0,rluders]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[openshift-bot]

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@0sewa0: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

• openshift/insights-operator#364

Bugzilla bug 1935605 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

[release 4.7] Bug 1935605: Adds memory usage to the metadata

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.