Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[processor/groupbytrace] Add num_workers doc to README #17305

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 27, 2023

Conversation

bryan-aguilar
Copy link
Contributor

Description: In PR #2902 the groupbytrace processor added a configuration option for multiple workers. This change was not reflected in the README. This PR updates the readme example and explanation.

Link to tracking Issue: n/a

Testing: n/a

Documentation: README update.

@bryan-aguilar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can this get a skipchangelog label? It's a minor doc update.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the processor/groupbytrace Group By Trace processor label Dec 29, 2022
@runforesight
Copy link

runforesight bot commented Dec 29, 2022

Foresight Summary

    
Major Impacts

TestScraper ❌ failed 1 times in 3 runs (33% fail rate).
TestScraper/metrics_golden ❌ failed 1 times in 3 runs (33% fail rate).
TestScraper/metrics_golden_sftp ❌ failed 1 times in 3 runs (33% fail rate).
build-and-test-windows duration(4 seconds) has decreased 40 minutes 26 seconds compared to main branch avg(40 minutes 30 seconds).
View More Details

✅  telemetrygen workflow has finished in 55 seconds (1 minute 29 seconds less than main branch avg.) and finished at 26th Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
build-dev -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-latest -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-stable -     🔗  N/A See Details

✅  tracegen workflow has finished in 1 minute (1 minute 25 seconds less than main branch avg.) and finished at 26th Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
build-dev -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-latest -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-stable -     🔗  N/A See Details

✅  check-links workflow has finished in 1 minute 22 seconds and finished at 26th Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
changed files -     🔗  N/A See Details
check-links -     🔗  N/A See Details

✅  prometheus-compliance-tests workflow has finished in 3 minutes 55 seconds (3 minutes 38 seconds less than main branch avg.) and finished at 26th Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
prometheus-compliance-tests -     🔗  ✅ 21  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details

✅  load-tests workflow has finished in 8 minutes 6 seconds (6 minutes 3 seconds less than main branch avg.) and finished at 26th Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
loadtest (TestIdleMode) -     🔗  ✅ 1  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestMetric10kDPS|TestMetricsFromFile) -     🔗  ✅ 6  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestMetricResourceProcessor|TestTrace10kSPS) -     🔗  ✅ 12  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestTraceNoBackend10kSPS|TestTrace1kSPSWithAttrs) -     🔗  ✅ 8  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestTraceAttributesProcessor) -     🔗  ✅ 3  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestTraceBallast1kSPSWithAttrs|TestTraceBallast1kSPSAddAttrs) -     🔗  ✅ 10  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
loadtest (TestBallastMemory|TestLog10kDPS) -     🔗  ✅ 19  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
setup-environment -     🔗  N/A See Details

✅  build-and-test workflow has finished in 33 minutes 36 seconds (18 minutes 26 seconds less than main branch avg.) and finished at 26th Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
unittest-matrix (1.18, exporter) -     🔗  ✅ 2416  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.18, receiver-1) -     🔗  ✅ 1944  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.19, receiver-1) -     🔗  ✅ 1944  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.19, exporter) -     🔗  ✅ 2416  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.19, other) -     🔗  ✅ 4659  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest-matrix (1.18, other) -     🔗  ✅ 4659  ❌ 0  ⏭ 0    🔗 See Details
unittest (1.19) -     🔗  N/A See Details
unittest (1.18) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (darwin, amd64) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (darwin, arm64) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (linux, 386) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (linux, amd64) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (linux, arm) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (linux, arm64) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (linux, ppc64le) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (windows, 386) -     🔗  N/A See Details
cross-compile (windows, amd64) -     🔗  N/A See Details
build-package (deb) -     🔗  N/A See Details
build-package (rpm) -     🔗  N/A See Details
windows-msi -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-check -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-dev -     🔗  N/A See Details
publish-stable -     🔗  N/A See Details

⭕  build-and-test-windows workflow has finished in 4 seconds (40 minutes 26 seconds less than main branch avg.) and finished at 27th Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
windows-unittest-matrix -     🔗  N/A See Details
windows-unittest -     🔗  N/A See Details

⭕  changelog workflow has finished in 4 seconds (2 minutes less than main branch avg.) and finished at 27th Jan, 2023.


Job Failed Steps Tests
changelog -     🔗  N/A See Details

🔎 See details on Foresight

*You can configure Foresight comments in your organization settings page.

@Aneurysm9 Aneurysm9 added the Skip Changelog PRs that do not require a CHANGELOG.md entry label Dec 29, 2022
@bryan-aguilar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for all the input so far. I have added default values for each of the configuration options to the README. I have also pruned away the recommendation for num_workers to match physical processors. Based on the conversation above it seems like end users should be encouraged to tune this configuration value based on their environment. Since this could vary wildly I have opted to make no recommendation at all.

Do we believe any deeper verbiage is required?

Copy link
Member

@andrzej-stencel andrzej-stencel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is good enough for me.

@bryan-aguilar bryan-aguilar requested review from pkositsyn and removed request for Aneurysm9 January 26, 2023 19:46
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the request for review from pkositsyn January 26, 2023 19:46
@bryan-aguilar
Copy link
Contributor Author

@pkositsyn @jpkrohling @Aneurysm9 I have updated the README to suggest that a user could use GOMAXPROCS as a starting point for optimization.

Copy link
Contributor

@pkositsyn pkositsyn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM
My approve doesn't count though. We need @jpkrohling

@Aneurysm9 Aneurysm9 added the ready to merge Code review completed; ready to merge by maintainers label Jan 27, 2023
@jpkrohling
Copy link
Member

My approve doesn't count though

I'm happy to see you here again, @pkositsyn. Hopefully you'll stay around and become an approver soon :-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
processor/groupbytrace Group By Trace processor ready to merge Code review completed; ready to merge by maintainers Skip Changelog PRs that do not require a CHANGELOG.md entry
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants