rfc: an efficient and misuse-resistant replacement for Bytes in Framer
#475
Conversation
Regression Detector (DogStatsD)Regression Detector ResultsRun ID: 2e3b0c48-066d-4416-b9a5-aa054e58165e Baseline: 7.63.0-rc.2 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | dsd_uds_500mb_3k_contexts | ingress throughput | +0.60 | [+0.49, +0.70] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_100mb_3k_contexts_distributions_only | memory utilization | +0.44 | [+0.28, +0.60] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_100mb_3k_contexts | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.04, +0.05] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_40mb_12k_contexts_40_senders | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.00, +0.00] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_1mb_50k_contexts | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.00, +0.00] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_512kb_3k_contexts | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_1mb_50k_contexts_memlimit | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.00, +0.00] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_1mb_3k_contexts | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.00, +0.00] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_1mb_3k_contexts_dualship | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.00, +0.00] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_100mb_250k_contexts | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.00, +0.00] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_10mb_3k_contexts | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.02, +0.00] | 1 | |
| ➖ | quality_gates_idle_rss | memory utilization | -0.81 | [-0.90, -0.72] | 1 |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | quality_gates_idle_rss | memory_usage | 0/10 |
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".
Regression Detector (Saluki)Regression Detector ResultsRun ID: 7acaf450-381a-46c8-b3e6-e5a2bd29a3ef Baseline: f056199 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | dsd_uds_500mb_3k_contexts | ingress throughput | +0.51 | [+0.40, +0.62] | 1 | |
| ➖ | quality_gates_idle_rss | memory utilization | +0.11 | [+0.08, +0.14] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_100mb_3k_contexts_distributions_only | memory utilization | +0.05 | [-0.08, +0.18] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_10mb_3k_contexts | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.01, +0.04] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_50mb_10k_contexts_no_inlining | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.06, +0.08] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_1mb_50k_contexts | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.00, +0.01] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_40mb_12k_contexts_40_senders | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.02, +0.03] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_1mb_3k_contexts | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.00, +0.01] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_100mb_250k_contexts | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.03, +0.04] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_100mb_3k_contexts | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.04, +0.05] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_1mb_3k_contexts_dualship | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.00, +0.00] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_512kb_3k_contexts | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_50mb_10k_contexts_no_inlining_no_allocs | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.07, +0.04] | 1 | |
| ➖ | dsd_uds_1mb_50k_contexts_memlimit | ingress throughput | -0.38 | [-0.90, +0.14] | 1 |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | quality_gates_idle_rss | 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".
Regression Detector LinksExperiment Result Links
|
| * At a minimum, an RFC must have a problem statement and a proposed solution. | ||
| 5. When you believe your RFC is ready, open a pull request to start the review process. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Finalized RFCs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Something I wish we would have done with Vector is to put a status in the RFC itself to indicate whether it has been implemented or not since, looking at the set of Vector RFCs, it is difficult to tell which are actually implemented. The states could include:
- "in review" (wouldn't literally be used since it would just be if the RFC is a PR)
- "approved"
- "implemented"
- "rejected"
- "superceded"
That could replace this "Finalized RFCs" list here.
| Writing an RFC should not be an overly-complicated affair, because ultimately we want to focus on finding a solution to | ||
| the stated problem. However, we all need to make sure we're on the same page when it comes to what an RFC should look like. | ||
|
|
||
| Here are the high-level guidelines you should when writing an RFC: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 these seem like a good start. I wouldn't mind seeing a template in the future.
Summary
This PR contains a proposed RFC for implementing a more efficient and misuse-resistant replacement for our usage of
Byteswithin theFramertrait.Rendered RFC
Additionally, it contains the boilerplate to bootstrap the RFC process/structure, as well as an update to the GH labeler action for tracking RFC PRs. I've left RFC 000 open to backfill specifically for writing an RFC about the RFC process itself, but didn't want to delay the review of this RFC on having a fully-qualified review process.
Change Type
How did you test this PR?
N/A
References
N/A