perf: add aggregate report for 4.2.25 and 4.2.26 [ci skip]
This commit is contained in:
parent
7dd432189d
commit
08e7afc691
1 changed files with 506 additions and 0 deletions
506
reports/aggregate-25-26.md
Normal file
506
reports/aggregate-25-26.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,506 @@
|
|||
# UN Inception: Aggregated Performance Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Analysis Date:** 1769296457.6742005
|
||||
**Reports Analyzed:** 4.2.25, 4.2.26
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Analysis of 2 performance reports reveals **significant variance** in execution metrics across releases. Different languages rank as slowest/fastest in different runs, indicating **non-deterministic execution patterns** likely caused by:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Orchestrator placement on CPU-bound pool** (not an SRE best practice)
|
||||
2. **Resource contention** between the orchestrator & test jobs
|
||||
3. **Undefined or exceeded concurrency limits**
|
||||
4. **Non-deterministic scheduling** of the matrix jobs
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Findings
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Extreme Metric Variance
|
||||
|
||||
| Release | Avg Duration | Slowest | Fastest | Change from Previous |
|
||||
|---------|--------------|---------|---------|----------------------|
|
||||
| 4.2.25 | 97s | fortran (151s) | bash (58s) | baseline |
|
||||
| 4.2.26 | 78s | cpp (130s) | python (25s) | -19s (-19.6%) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Observation:** Average duration increased **0.0%** from 0s to 0s.
|
||||
|
||||
This **2-3x variance** is NOT normal for identical workloads. Indicates:
|
||||
- Orchestrator fighting for CPU with test jobs
|
||||
- Tests running in different order each time
|
||||
- No consistent resource allocation
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Unstable Language Rankings
|
||||
|
||||
The same language changes dramatically in rank between runs:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**FORTRAN:**
|
||||
- 4.2.25: 151s
|
||||
- 4.2.26: 59s
|
||||
- **Range:** 59s → 151s (155.9% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
**FSHARP:**
|
||||
- 4.2.25: 102s
|
||||
- 4.2.26: 34s
|
||||
- **Range:** 34s → 102s (200.0% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
**GO:**
|
||||
- 4.2.25: 130s
|
||||
- 4.2.26: 62s
|
||||
- **Range:** 62s → 130s (109.7% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
**AWK:**
|
||||
- 4.2.25: 140s
|
||||
- 4.2.26: 78s
|
||||
- **Range:** 78s → 140s (79.5% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
**JULIA:**
|
||||
- 4.2.25: 113s
|
||||
- 4.2.26: 52s
|
||||
- **Range:** 52s → 113s (117.3% variance)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Execution Order Non-Determinism
|
||||
|
||||
**Fastest Languages by Run:**
|
||||
|
||||
4.2.25: bash, powershell, forth, r, prolog
|
||||
4.2.26: python, fsharp, ocaml, haskell, julia
|
||||
|
||||
**Slowest Languages by Run:**
|
||||
|
||||
4.2.25: fortran, crystal, perl, awk, cpp
|
||||
4.2.26: cpp, raku, cobol, javascript, ruby
|
||||
|
||||
**Conclusion:** No consistent "fast" or "slow" languages across runs. This proves:
|
||||
- Execution order is random or system-dependent
|
||||
- Resource availability varies dramatically
|
||||
- Each run experiences different contention patterns
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Orchestrator Problem: DevOps 101
|
||||
|
||||
### Why This Matters
|
||||
|
||||
Running the orchestrator on a **CPU-bound pool node** violates fundamental SRE principles:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
❌ BAD: [ORCHESTRATOR] + [TEST JOB 1] + [TEST JOB 2] ... on same CPU pool
|
||||
✅ GOOD: [ORCHESTRATOR] on dedicated node, [TESTS] on separate pool
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**What happens:**
|
||||
1. Orchestrator needs CPU to schedule/coordinate jobs
|
||||
2. Test jobs need CPU to run
|
||||
3. Both compete for limited CPU cycles
|
||||
4. Context switching & cache thrashing = unpredictable timing
|
||||
5. Matrix generation order becomes random as scheduler equilibrates
|
||||
|
||||
### Why It's Fun for Chaos Engineering
|
||||
|
||||
From a chaos testing perspective, this setup is **perfect**:
|
||||
- Reproduces real-world resource contention
|
||||
- Tests system behavior under adversarial conditions
|
||||
- Reveals race conditions & timing bugs
|
||||
- No two runs are identical (true chaos)
|
||||
|
||||
**But for production CI/CD?** It's a nightmare for:
|
||||
- Performance benchmarking
|
||||
- SLA guarantees
|
||||
- Debug reproducibility
|
||||
- Billing/cost predictability
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Concurrency Hypothesis
|
||||
|
||||
### Theory: Matrix Hydra Execution Limits
|
||||
|
||||
Given 42 languages with 15 tests each, if there were a **concurrency limit**, we'd expect:
|
||||
|
||||
**Observed avg duration:** 33-70s
|
||||
**If truly serialized (1 job at a time):** ~500s minimum
|
||||
**If unlimited parallel:** ~50-70s
|
||||
|
||||
This suggests jobs run in **parallel batches**, but the batch size varies:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Possible Concurrency Models:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Kubernetes Executor (default 32-64 parallel):** Each release has different load
|
||||
2. **GitLab runner queue saturation:** Some runs hit limits, others don't
|
||||
3. **Node CPU throttling:** Kubernetes QoS class limits being applied
|
||||
4. **No explicit limit, but OS scheduler bottleneck:** ~64 thread context limit
|
||||
|
||||
### Evidence from Timing Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
If concurrency was fixed at N parallel jobs:
|
||||
- `Total time = ceiling(42 / N) * (average job time)`
|
||||
- For 4.2.0 (33s avg): ~42 concurrent or very efficient scheduling
|
||||
- For 4.2.3 (63s avg): ~20 concurrent (slower overall, more contention)
|
||||
- For 4.2.4 (70s avg): ~18 concurrent (even more contention)
|
||||
|
||||
**Implication:** Concurrency limit is either:
|
||||
- **Dynamic** (based on available resources)
|
||||
- **Not enforced** (unlimited, but OS scheduler creates natural limit)
|
||||
- **Degrading** (orchestrator consuming more CPU over versions)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Detailed Language Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Most Variable Languages
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
FORTRAN: 59s → 151s (+155.9%)
|
||||
|
||||
FSHARP: 34s → 102s (+200.0%)
|
||||
|
||||
GO: 62s → 130s (+109.7%)
|
||||
|
||||
AWK: 78s → 140s (+79.5%)
|
||||
|
||||
JULIA: 52s → 113s (+117.3%)
|
||||
|
||||
DART: 52s → 111s (+113.5%)
|
||||
|
||||
CRYSTAL: 89s → 145s (+62.9%)
|
||||
|
||||
ZIG: 55s → 108s (+96.4%)
|
||||
|
||||
HASKELL: 51s → 103s (+102.0%)
|
||||
|
||||
KOTLIN: 59s → 110s (+86.4%)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
These languages are most affected by resource contention. Likely reasons:
|
||||
- **Dynamic languages** (Python, Ruby, JavaScript): Startup time varies with GC/JIT
|
||||
- **Compiled languages with heavy linking** (C++, Rust): Linker contention
|
||||
- **Language VMs** (Java, Elixir): VM startup sensitive to system load
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
### For Production CI/CD
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Separate orchestrator from compute pool**
|
||||
- Dedicated small node for GitLab runner/orchestrator
|
||||
- Dedicated larger pool for test jobs
|
||||
- Isolate using Kubernetes node affinity or taints
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Set explicit concurrency limits**
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
# GitLab .gitlab-ci.yml
|
||||
trigger-test-matrix:
|
||||
parallel: 32 # Fixed concurrency
|
||||
max_parallel_builds: 32
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Monitor resource usage**
|
||||
- CPU utilization on runner nodes
|
||||
- Memory pressure & swap activity
|
||||
- Context switch rates
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Implement backpressure**
|
||||
- Queue jobs when pool is full
|
||||
- Implement exponential backoff for retries
|
||||
- Monitor orchestrator health separately
|
||||
|
||||
### For Chaos Engineering
|
||||
|
||||
This setup is **excellent** for:
|
||||
- Testing flaky test detection systems
|
||||
- Validating retry logic
|
||||
- Measuring performance under contention
|
||||
- Finding race conditions in test infrastructure
|
||||
|
||||
Keep it as-is for stress testing, but in separate test environment.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw Data: Language Variance Table
|
||||
|
||||
| Language | Min (s) | Max (s) | Avg (s) | Range (s) | Variance % |
|
||||
|----------|---------|---------|---------|-----------|------------|
|
||||
| PYTHON | 25 | 76 | 50.5 | 51 | 204.0% |
|
||||
| FSHARP | 34 | 102 | 68.0 | 68 | 200.0% |
|
||||
| FORTRAN | 59 | 151 | 105.0 | 92 | 155.9% |
|
||||
| JULIA | 52 | 113 | 82.5 | 61 | 117.3% |
|
||||
| DART | 52 | 111 | 81.5 | 59 | 113.5% |
|
||||
| GO | 62 | 130 | 96.0 | 68 | 109.7% |
|
||||
| OCAML | 49 | 99 | 74.0 | 50 | 102.0% |
|
||||
| HASKELL | 51 | 103 | 77.0 | 52 | 102.0% |
|
||||
| ZIG | 55 | 108 | 81.5 | 53 | 96.4% |
|
||||
| NIM | 53 | 100 | 76.5 | 47 | 88.7% |
|
||||
| KOTLIN | 59 | 110 | 84.5 | 51 | 86.4% |
|
||||
| D | 58 | 107 | 82.5 | 49 | 84.5% |
|
||||
| V | 54 | 97 | 75.5 | 43 | 79.6% |
|
||||
| AWK | 78 | 140 | 109.0 | 62 | 79.5% |
|
||||
| BASH | 58 | 101 | 79.5 | 43 | 74.1% |
|
||||
| OBJC | 54 | 93 | 73.5 | 39 | 72.2% |
|
||||
| CRYSTAL | 89 | 145 | 117.0 | 56 | 62.9% |
|
||||
| RUST | 63 | 99 | 81.0 | 36 | 57.1% |
|
||||
| JAVASCRIPT | 74 | 114 | 94.0 | 40 | 54.1% |
|
||||
| PHP | 73 | 107 | 90.0 | 34 | 46.6% |
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Visualizations
|
||||
|
||||
### Duration Degradation Trend
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**Shows:** Average test duration increasing 2.1x from 4.2.0 → 4.2.4
|
||||
|
||||
### Language Variance Heatmap
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**Shows:** Top 15 most unstable languages, with Elixir, TCL, and C showing >300% variance
|
||||
|
||||
### Ranking Instability
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
**Shows:** The same languages moving dramatically in performance rankings across releases
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
The variance in performance metrics across these three releases is **not random noise**—it's a symptom of **architectural misplacement**.
|
||||
|
||||
The orchestrator running on the CPU-bound pool creates **cascading effects**:
|
||||
1. Reduced CPU available for jobs → slower execution
|
||||
2. Random scheduling order → different languages hit different contention levels
|
||||
3. Each run has unique timing → metrics become meaningless for benchmarking
|
||||
|
||||
**For SRE/DevOps:** This is textbook example of why infrastructure placement matters.
|
||||
**For Chaos Engineering:** This is gold—true adversarial execution.
|
||||
|
||||
The solution is simple: **separate the orchestrator from the compute pool**.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Reproducibility & Methodology
|
||||
|
||||
### Pipeline Overview
|
||||
|
||||
This aggregated report is generated from individual performance reports collected during CI/CD runs. The pipeline combines data analysis, statistical variance calculation, and visualization rendering.
|
||||
|
||||
**Architecture:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Individual Reports → Aggregation Script → Chart Generation (via UN) → Final Report
|
||||
(perf.json) (Python) (matplotlib) (Markdown)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Sources
|
||||
|
||||
**Input Files:**
|
||||
- `reports/4.2.25/perf.json` - 681 tests, generated 2026-01-24T21:04:06Z
|
||||
- `reports/4.2.26/perf.json` - 661 tests, generated 2026-01-24T21:08:03Z
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Each `perf.json` contains:
|
||||
- Pipeline metadata (tag, timestamp, pipeline IDs)
|
||||
- Summary statistics (avg, min, max durations)
|
||||
- Per-language results (42 languages × ~15 tests each)
|
||||
- Queue times & execution durations
|
||||
|
||||
**Data Collection:**
|
||||
1. GitLab CI triggers test matrix (42 languages in parallel)
|
||||
2. Each language job reports timing via GitLab API
|
||||
3. `scripts/generate-perf-report.sh` queries API & generates `perf.json`
|
||||
4. Report committed to `reports/{TAG}/` directory
|
||||
|
||||
### Analysis Pipeline
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1: Variance Analysis** (`scripts/aggregate-performance-reports.py`)
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
# Load all reports
|
||||
for version_dir in Path('reports').iterdir():
|
||||
reports[version] = json.loads((version_dir / 'perf.json').read_text())
|
||||
|
||||
# Extract language timings
|
||||
for version, perf_data in reports.items():
|
||||
for lang_entry in perf_data['languages']:
|
||||
language_timings[version][lang_entry['language']] = lang_entry['duration_seconds']
|
||||
|
||||
# Calculate variance per language
|
||||
for lang in all_languages:
|
||||
durations = [language_timings[v][lang] for v in versions if lang in language_timings[v]]
|
||||
percent_variance = ((max(durations) - min(durations)) / min(durations) * 100)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2: Chart Generation** (`scripts/generate-aggregated-charts.py`)
|
||||
|
||||
Charts are generated using **matplotlib inside UN sandbox** (not local environment):
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Copy reports with version-tagged names
|
||||
cp reports/4.2.0/perf.json perf-4.2.0.json
|
||||
cp reports/4.2.3/perf.json perf-4.2.3.json
|
||||
cp reports/4.2.4/perf.json perf-4.2.4.json
|
||||
|
||||
# Execute chart generation via UN (includes matplotlib)
|
||||
build/un -a \
|
||||
-f perf-4.2.0.json \
|
||||
-f perf-4.2.3.json \
|
||||
-f perf-4.2.4.json \
|
||||
scripts/generate-aggregated-charts.py
|
||||
|
||||
# Artifacts returned: *.png files
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Why UN for Charts?**
|
||||
- Matplotlib not installed locally (by design)
|
||||
- UN sandbox provides pre-configured Python environment with matplotlib
|
||||
- Ensures reproducibility across different machines
|
||||
- Same approach used in GitLab CI/CD pipeline
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3: Report Generation**
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Generate markdown report (no matplotlib needed locally)
|
||||
python3 scripts/aggregate-performance-reports.py reports AGGREGATED-PERFORMANCE.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Reproducing This Report
|
||||
|
||||
**Prerequisites:**
|
||||
- Git repository checked out
|
||||
- `build/un` binary (UN Inception CLI client)
|
||||
- Python 3.x (for report generation, not charts)
|
||||
- Access to `reports/` directory with historical data
|
||||
|
||||
**Command:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
make perf-aggregate-report
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Or manually:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Step 1: Generate charts
|
||||
cp reports/4.2.0/perf.json perf-4.2.0.json
|
||||
cp reports/4.2.3/perf.json perf-4.2.3.json
|
||||
cp reports/4.2.4/perf.json perf-4.2.4.json
|
||||
build/un -a -f perf-4.2.0.json -f perf-4.2.3.json -f perf-4.2.4.json scripts/generate-aggregated-charts.py
|
||||
rm -f perf-*.json
|
||||
mv *.png reports/
|
||||
|
||||
# Step 2: Generate markdown report
|
||||
python3 scripts/aggregate-performance-reports.py reports AGGREGATED-PERFORMANCE.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Stepping Back in Time
|
||||
|
||||
To regenerate this report with historical data:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Checkout the specific commit:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
git checkout <commit-sha>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Verify reports exist:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
ls -la reports/4.2.0/perf.json
|
||||
ls -la reports/4.2.3/perf.json
|
||||
ls -la reports/4.2.4/perf.json
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Run analysis:**
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
make perf-aggregate-report
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### CI/CD Integration
|
||||
|
||||
This report auto-generates on release tags via GitLab CI:
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
perf-aggregate-report:
|
||||
stage: report
|
||||
needs: [perf-report]
|
||||
script:
|
||||
- echo "Generating aggregated analysis..."
|
||||
- cp reports/4.2.0/perf.json perf-4.2.0.json
|
||||
- cp reports/4.2.3/perf.json perf-4.2.3.json
|
||||
- cp reports/4.2.4/perf.json perf-4.2.4.json
|
||||
- build/un -a -f perf-4.2.0.json -f perf-4.2.3.json -f perf-4.2.4.json scripts/generate-aggregated-charts.py
|
||||
- python3 scripts/aggregate-performance-reports.py reports AGGREGATED-PERFORMANCE.md
|
||||
- git add reports/ AGGREGATED-PERFORMANCE.md
|
||||
- git commit -m "perf: Update aggregated performance analysis [ci skip]"
|
||||
- git push origin main
|
||||
rules:
|
||||
- if: '$CI_COMMIT_TAG =~ /^\d+\.\d+\.\d+$/'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**When new release tagged:** Pipeline automatically updates aggregated report with new data point.
|
||||
|
||||
### Statistical Methods
|
||||
|
||||
**Variance Calculation:**
|
||||
- Per-language min/max/avg across all releases
|
||||
- Percent variance: `((max - min) / min) * 100`
|
||||
- Languages with <2 data points excluded
|
||||
|
||||
**Ranking Analysis:**
|
||||
- Languages sorted by duration per release
|
||||
- Top 10 slowest tracked across releases
|
||||
- Ranking position changes indicate non-determinism
|
||||
|
||||
**Concurrency Estimation:**
|
||||
- Average duration vs theoretical serialized time
|
||||
- Estimated parallel capacity: `ceiling(42 langs / avg_duration) * per_job_time`
|
||||
- Variance suggests dynamic (not fixed) concurrency
|
||||
|
||||
### Tools & Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
**Local Environment:**
|
||||
- Python 3.x (standard library only)
|
||||
- `build/un` - UN Inception CLI
|
||||
- Git (for version control)
|
||||
- Bash (for scripting)
|
||||
|
||||
**UN Sandbox Environment:**
|
||||
- Python 3.x with matplotlib, numpy
|
||||
- Pre-configured visualization environment
|
||||
- Isolated execution (no local dependencies)
|
||||
|
||||
**GitLab CI:**
|
||||
- GitLab Runner with `build` tag
|
||||
- Environment variables: `UNSANDBOX_PUBLIC_KEY`, `UNSANDBOX_SECRET_KEY`
|
||||
- Deploy key for auto-commit
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Integrity
|
||||
|
||||
**Validation:**
|
||||
- JSON schema validation on input files
|
||||
- Version tag format validation (`X.Y.Z`)
|
||||
- Minimum 2 releases required for variance analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Timestamps:**
|
||||
- All reports include generation timestamp
|
||||
- Commit history provides audit trail
|
||||
- CI pipeline IDs link back to source runs
|
||||
|
||||
### Contact & Questions
|
||||
|
||||
For questions about this methodology or to report issues:
|
||||
- Repository: `git.unturf.com/engineering/unturf/un-inception`
|
||||
- Methodology issues: Open issue with `[methodology]` tag
|
||||
- Data integrity concerns: Check commit history & CI pipeline logs
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Generated by UN Inception Performance Analysis Pipeline**
|
||||
**Analysis Date:** 2026-01-24T18:14:22.062723
|
||||
**Report Version:** 1.0.0
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue