Skip to content

[CONTINT] Retry event checkpoint read#53752

Open
triviajon wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
triviajon/dev/event-checkpoint-retry
Open

[CONTINT] Retry event checkpoint read#53752
triviajon wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
triviajon/dev/event-checkpoint-retry

Conversation

@triviajon

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Adds retry-with-backoff when reading the kubernetes_apiserver event-collection checkpoint from its ConfigMap.

Motivation

A transient error reading the checkpoint was being treated the same as "checkpoint doesn't exist," which resets the watermark to 0 and causing the initial watch to potentially redeliver all events. For example:

2026-07-16 14:38:39 UTC | CLUSTER | ERROR | (/home/datadog/go/src/github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent-checkpoint-baseline/pkg/util/kubernetes/apiserver/apiserver.go:509 in getOrCreateConfigMap) | Could not get the ConfigMap baseline-token: configmaps "baseline-token" not found, trying to create it.
2026-07-16 14:38:39 UTC | CLUSTER | INFO | (/home/datadog/go/src/github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent-checkpoint-baseline/pkg/util/kubernetes/apiserver/apiserver.go:519 in getOrCreateConfigMap) | Created the ConfigMap baseline-token

Describe how you validated your changes

Reproduced the behavior on a kind cluster running the DCA via the Operator by denying the DCA GET requests to the checkpoint ConfigMap temporarily to hit the retry.

Additional Notes

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly label Jul 16, 2026
@triviajon triviajon added qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed labels Jul 16, 2026
@triviajon
triviajon marked this pull request as ready for review July 16, 2026 15:48
@triviajon
triviajon requested review from a team as code owners July 16, 2026 15:48
@github-actions github-actions Bot deleted a comment from chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Jul 16, 2026
@datadog-prod-us1-4

datadog-prod-us1-4 Bot commented Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
Patch Coverage: 0.00%
Overall Coverage: 51.87%

This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 2b5cc01 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!

@gabedos gabedos left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updating getOrCreateConfigMap to return error on transient failures lgtm

@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor b464cb5c:

Results for datadog-agent_7.83.0~devel.git.138.2b5cc01.pipeline.125129089-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Static quality checks

✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates
Comparison made with ancestor b464cb5
📊 Static Quality Gates Dashboard
🔗 SQG Job

Successful checks

Info

Quality gate Change Size (prev → curr → max)
docker_cluster_agent_amd64 +4.01 KiB (0.00% increase, -0.67% of buffer) 209.881 → 209.885 → 210.470
32 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
Quality gate Current Size
agent_deb_amd64 750.971 MiB
agent_deb_amd64_fips 705.876 MiB
agent_heroku_amd64 307.701 MiB
agent_msi 645.645 MiB
agent_rpm_amd64 750.955 MiB
agent_rpm_amd64_fips 705.860 MiB
agent_rpm_arm64 726.039 MiB
agent_rpm_arm64_fips 684.629 MiB
agent_suse_amd64 750.955 MiB
agent_suse_amd64_fips 705.860 MiB
agent_suse_arm64 726.039 MiB
agent_suse_arm64_fips 684.629 MiB
docker_agent_amd64 809.678 MiB
docker_agent_arm64 809.767 MiB
docker_agent_jmx_amd64 1000.576 MiB
docker_agent_jmx_arm64 989.317 MiB
docker_cluster_agent_arm64 222.952 MiB
docker_cws_instrumentation_amd64 7.447 MiB
docker_cws_instrumentation_arm64 6.877 MiB
docker_dogstatsd_amd64 39.216 MiB
docker_dogstatsd_arm64 37.367 MiB
docker_host_profiler_amd64 303.093 MiB
docker_host_profiler_arm64 314.591 MiB
dogstatsd_deb_amd64 29.951 MiB
dogstatsd_deb_arm64 27.994 MiB
dogstatsd_rpm_amd64 29.951 MiB
dogstatsd_suse_amd64 29.951 MiB
iot_agent_deb_amd64 46.194 MiB
iot_agent_deb_arm64 42.882 MiB
iot_agent_deb_armhf 43.647 MiB
iot_agent_rpm_amd64 46.195 MiB
iot_agent_suse_amd64 46.194 MiB

@cit-pr-commenter-54b7da

cit-pr-commenter-54b7da Bot commented Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 3404008e-9227-4136-9f6b-9c14641dc487

Baseline: b464cb5
Comparison: 2b5cc01
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory utilization +0.51 [+0.25, +0.77] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization +0.20 [-0.79, +1.19] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.12 [+0.04, +0.21] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load memory utilization -0.04 [-0.08, +0.00] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_no_fs_load memory utilization -0.32 [-0.42, -0.23] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_idle memory utilization -0.41 [-0.46, -0.35] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.41 [-0.46, -0.36] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed observed_value links
quality_gate_idle intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 4 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10 145.66MiB ≤ 154MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle total_bytes_received 10/10 734.38KiB ≤ 819.20KiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 4 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 9/10 495.59MiB > 495MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features total_bytes_received 10/10 1.12MiB ≤ 1.25MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs intake_connections 10/10 4 ≤ 6 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10 183.86MiB ≤ 195MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs total_bytes_received 10/10 264.16MiB ≤ 292MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs cpu_usage 10/10 363.89 ≤ 2000 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 6 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory_usage 10/10 417.82MiB ≤ 430MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs total_bytes_received 10/10 0.94GiB ≤ 1.04GiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_idle cpu_usage 10/10 29.80 ≤ 40 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_idle memory_usage 10/10 298.34MiB ≤ 330MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load cpu_usage 10/10 61.67 ≤ 80 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load memory_usage 10/10 279.49MiB ≤ 310MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_no_fs_load cpu_usage 10/10 24.19 ≤ 40 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_no_fs_load memory_usage 10/10 284.40MiB ≤ 320MiB 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:

  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".

Replicate Execution Details

We run multiple replicates for each experiment/variant. However, we allow replicates to be automatically retried if there are any failures, up to 8 times, at which point the replicate is marked dead and we are unable to run analysis for the entire experiment. We call each of these attempts at running replicates a replicate execution. This section lists all replicate executions that failed due to the target crashing or being oom killed.

Note: In the below tables we bucket failures by experiment, variant, and failure type. For each of these buckets we list out the replicate indexes that failed with an annotation signifying how many times said replicate failed with the given failure mode. In the below example the baseline variant of the experiment named experiment_with_failures had two replicates that failed by oom kills. Replicate 0, which failed 8 executions, and replicate 1 which failed 6 executions, all with the same failure mode.

Experiment Variant Replicates Failure Logs Debug Dashboard
experiment_with_failures baseline 0 (x8) 1 (x6) Oom killed Debug Dashboard

The debug dashboard links will take you to a debugging dashboard specifically designed to investigate replicate execution failures.

❌ Retried Profiling Replicate Execution Failures (ddprof)

Note: Profiling replicas may still be executing. See the debug dashboard for up to date status.

Experiment Variant Replicates Failure Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_idle baseline 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features baseline 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features comparison 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_logs baseline 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_logs comparison 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs baseline 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs comparison 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_security_idle baseline 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_security_idle comparison 10 Crashed (exit code: 134) Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load comparison 10 Crashed (exit code: 134) Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_security_no_fs_load baseline 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_security_no_fs_load comparison 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard

CI Pass/Fail Decision

Failed. Some Quality Gates were violated.

  • quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 9/10 replicas passed. Failed 1 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate 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_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, 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_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@triviajon triviajon added backport/7.81.x Automatically create a backport PR to the 7.81.x branch once the PR is merged backport/7.82.x Automatically create a backport PR to the 7.82.x branch once the PR is merged labels Jul 16, 2026
@triviajon
triviajon requested a review from a team as a code owner July 16, 2026 20:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

backport/7.81.x Automatically create a backport PR to the 7.81.x branch once the PR is merged backport/7.82.x Automatically create a backport PR to the 7.82.x branch once the PR is merged changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed internal Identify a non-fork PR qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly team/agent-build team/container-integrations team/container-platform The Container Platform Team team/kubernetes-experiences

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants