-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
[NDMII-3459] Add VPN tunnels metadata collection for SNMP #37339
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: a95af0e Optimization Goals: ✅ Improvement(s) detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | +0.64 | [+0.52, +0.76] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | +0.47 | [+0.35, +0.59] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.40 | [-0.45, +1.24] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.40 | [+0.34, +0.45] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.36 | [+0.28, +0.44] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +0.26 | [-2.47, +2.98] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.20 | [+0.03, +0.36] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | +0.09 | [-0.04, +0.22] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.02, +0.03] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.61, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.27, +0.25] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.63, +0.59] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.61, +0.57] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.58, +0.53] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.60, +0.53] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.58, +0.49] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.27, +0.18] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.66, +0.54] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.08 | [-0.14, -0.01] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -0.29 | [-0.35, -0.23] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -2.11 | [-2.17, -2.05] | 1 | Logs |
✅ | file_tree | memory utilization | -6.62 | [-6.81, -6.44] | 1 | Logs |
✅ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -7.12 | [-10.08, -4.16] | 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_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | 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_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_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 |
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_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.
- 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_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
routePrefixLen := netmaskToPrefixlen(strings.Join(indexElems[4:8], ".")) | ||
nextHopIP := strings.Join(indexElems[9:13], ".") | ||
|
||
ifIndex := store.GetColumnAsString("ipforward_deprecated.if_index", strIndex) |
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.
Is ifIndex
always non-empty?
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.
It is non-empty, but if a route doesn't have an interface, then the value will be 0
nextHopIP = strings.Join(indexElems[currMaxIndex-nextHopLength:currMaxIndex], ".") | ||
} | ||
|
||
ifIndex := store.GetColumnAsString("ipforward.if_index", strIndex) |
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.
Again: is ifIndex
always non-empty?
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.
Same as above
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.
LGTM for agent-configuration owned files
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.
Code is very clean! 👏 left a few questions but looks good overall
// 4 ipCidrRouteDest | ||
// 4 ipCidrRouteMask | ||
// 1 ipCidrRouteTos | ||
// 4 ipCidrRouteNextHop |
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.
Let's add a log here
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.
Done in d9e394b
} | ||
|
||
destAddrType := indexElems[currMaxIndex-2] | ||
if destAddrType != inetAddressIPv4 { |
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.
we don't want to support ipv6?
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.
not for now
NextHopIP: nextHopIP, | ||
IfIndex: ifIndex, | ||
} | ||
routesByIfIndex[ifIndex] = append(routesByIfIndex[ifIndex], route) |
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.
if a device expose its routes through both the deprecated and current OIDs, will we get duplicated entries in the metadata?
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.
you are right, added a set for routes to avoid duplicates in 421fb44, same for tunnels.
Also realized when converting the VPN tunnels map values to a slice, the order is not always the same, I modified the ToSlice
method to always have the same output
What does this PR do?
This PR adds VPN tunnels and route table metadata collection to SNMP. It adds a new
VPNTunnelsMetadata
toNetworkDevicesMetadata
sent to the back-end.Motivation
https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/II/pages/5095162627/On-Prem+VPN+Data+Collection+for+Site-to-Site+VPN+Resolution
Describe how you validated your changes
vpn_tunnels
is displayed in thedatadog-agent check snmp
command:Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes