[Backport 7.62.x] [CWS] remove simpleHTTPRequest and use regular client
#32804
Conversation
![agent-platform-auto-pr[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/365230?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
(cherry picked from commit 3fa0ffd)
agent-platform-auto-pr
bot
added
changelog/no-changelog
component/system-probe
team/agent-security
qa/done
|
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 52522626 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests: Jobs:
If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help |
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=52522626 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit 44876be |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 7177c2b Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +2.52 | [-0.78, +5.82] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.34 | [-0.44, +1.12] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.10 | [-0.78, +0.97] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.69, +0.81] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.69, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.74, +0.84] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.62, +0.65] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.12, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.84, +0.82] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.12 | [-0.21, -0.04] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.15 | [-0.62, +0.31] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.23 | [-0.37, -0.10] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.35 | [-0.39, -0.30] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.60 | [-0.66, -0.54] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.73 | [-1.40, -0.05] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | 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 | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 |
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_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Backport 3fa0ffd from #32795.
<!--
-->
What does this PR do?
This PR removes the
simpleHTTPRequestcode and replaces it by a regularhttp.Getcall from the stdlib. This is because our simple http request doesn't correctly handle everything that the ECS metadata server is sending us causing some potential issues with clients.Sadly this is causing a little increase in size of the
cws-instrumentationbinary. (from ~7 to ~9 MiB locally). Some improvements for this will come in follow up PRs.Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
<!--
Validate your changes before merge, ensuring that:
If you want additional validation by a second person, you can ask reviewers to do it. Describe how to set up an environment for manual tests in the PR description. Manual validation is expected to happen on every commit before merge.
Any manual validation step should then map to an automated test. Manual validation should not substitute automation, minus exceptions not supported by test tooling yet.
-->
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes
<!--
version was chosen.
-->