un-inception/AGGREGATED-PERFORMANCE.md

UN Inception: Aggregated Performance Analysis

Analysis Date: 1768854271.4302914 Reports Analyzed: 4.2.0, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.2.6

---

Executive Summary

Analysis of 5 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
4.2.0	33s	raku (93s)	ocaml (19s)	baseline
4.2.3	63s	rust (142s)	v (40s)	+30s (+90.9%)
4.2.4	70s	python (110s)	c (23s)	+7s (+11.1%)
4.2.5	67s	v (114s)	erlang (44s)	-3s (-4.3%)
4.2.6	54s	haskell (128s)	awk (23s)	-13s (-19.4%)

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:

HASKELL:

• 4.2.0: 21s
• 4.2.3: 58s
• 4.2.4: 66s
• 4.2.5: 106s
• 4.2.6: 128s
• Range: 21s → 128s (509.5% variance)

V:

• 4.2.0: 22s
• 4.2.3: 40s
• 4.2.4: 49s
• 4.2.5: 114s
• 4.2.6: 58s
• Range: 22s → 114s (418.2% variance)

ELIXIR:

• 4.2.0: 20s
• 4.2.3: 69s
• 4.2.4: 105s
• 4.2.5: 55s
• 4.2.6: 41s
• Range: 20s → 105s (425.0% variance)

C:

• 4.2.0: 23s
• 4.2.3: 107s
• 4.2.4: 23s
• 4.2.5: 68s
• 4.2.6: 74s
• Range: 23s → 107s (365.2% variance)

RUST:

• 4.2.0: 64s
• 4.2.3: 142s
• 4.2.4: 94s
• 4.2.5: 64s
• 4.2.6: 91s
• Range: 64s → 142s (121.9% variance)

---

3. Execution Order Non-Determinism

Fastest Languages by Run:

4.2.0: ocaml, tcl, elixir, csharp, cobol 4.2.3: v, d, kotlin, awk, raku 4.2.4: c, d, cobol, raku, v 4.2.5: erlang, awk, bash, deno, tcl 4.2.6: awk, powershell, crystal, raku, erlang

Slowest Languages by Run:

4.2.0: raku, javascript, cpp, rust, go 4.2.3: rust, c, python, typescript, javascript 4.2.4: python, javascript, elixir, scheme, bash 4.2.5: v, haskell, scheme, ocaml, powershell 4.2.6: haskell, go, cpp, rust, forth

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

HASKELL: 21s → 128s (+509.5%)

V: 22s → 114s (+418.2%)

ELIXIR: 20s → 105s (+425.0%)

C: 23s → 107s (+365.2%)

RUST: 64s → 142s (+121.9%)

SCHEME: 24s → 102s (+325.0%)

CLOJURE: 21s → 97s (+361.9%)

TCL: 20s → 96s (+380.0%)

OCAML: 19s → 94s (+394.7%)

POWERSHELL: 26s → 96s (+269.2%)

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

   # 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 %
HASKELL	21	128	75.8	107	509.5%
ELIXIR	20	105	58.0	85	425.0%
V	22	114	56.6	92	418.2%
OCAML	19	94	57.0	75	394.7%
TCL	20	96	54.0	76	380.0%
C	23	107	59.0	84	365.2%
CLOJURE	21	97	59.4	76	361.9%
SCHEME	24	102	66.6	78	325.0%
POWERSHELL	26	96	60.6	70	269.2%
CRYSTAL	24	88	52.2	64	266.7%
ERLANG	29	97	54.4	68	234.5%
COBOL	20	66	50.2	46	230.0%
FSHARP	26	85	56.2	59	226.9%
PHP	23	74	54.0	51	221.7%
CSHARP	20	63	52.6	43	215.0%
GROOVY	23	70	50.4	47	204.3%
PERL	26	77	53.2	51	196.2%
R	25	74	52.4	49	196.0%
BASH	35	100	57.0	65	185.7%
RAKU	33	93	55.0	60	181.8%

---

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/4.2.0/perf.json - 642 tests, generated 2026-01-18T23:20:51Z
• reports/4.2.3/perf.json - 642 tests, generated 2026-01-19T11:58:45Z
• reports/4.2.4/perf.json - 682 tests, generated 2026-01-19T12:02:14Z
• reports/4.2.5/perf.json - 658 tests, generated 2026-01-19T19:10:23Z
• reports/4.2.6/perf.json - 642 tests, generated 2026-01-19T20:22:16Z

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)

# 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):

# 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

# 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:

make perf-aggregate-report

Or manually:

# 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:

   git checkout <commit-sha>
   

2. Verify reports exist:

   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:

   make perf-aggregate-report
   

CI/CD Integration

This report auto-generates on release tags via GitLab CI:

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: 2026-01-19T15:24:31.470403 Report Version: 1.0.0