Open Stack

On 01/07/2014 06:20 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
>
> On 1/2/2014 8:29 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> A lot of elastic recheck this fall has been based on the ad hoc needs of
>> the moment, in between diving down into the race bugs that were
>> uncovered by it. This week away from it all helped provide a little
>> perspective on what I think we need to do to call it *done* (i.e.
>> something akin to a 1.0 even though we are CDing it).
>>
>> Here is my current thinking on the next major things that should happen.
>> Opinions welcomed.
>>
>> (These are roughly in implementation order based on urgency)
>>
>> = Split of web UI =
>>
>> The elastic recheck page is becoming a mismash of what was needed at the
>> time. I think what we really have emerging is:
>>   * Overall Gate Health
>>   * Known (to ER) Bugs
>>   * Unknown (to ER) Bugs - more below
>>
>> I think the landing page should be Know Bugs, as that's where we want
>> both bug hunters to go to prioritize things, as well as where people
>> looking for known bugs should start.
>>
>> I think the overall Gate Health graphs should move to the zuul status
>> page. Possibly as part of the collection of graphs at the bottom.
>>
>> We should have a secondary page (maybe column?) of the un-fingerprinted
>> recheck bugs, largely to use as candidates for fingerprinting. This will
>> let us eventually take over /recheck.
>>
>> = Data Analysis / Graphs =
>>
>> I spent a bunch of time playing with pandas over break
>> (http://dague.net/2013/12/30/ipython-notebook-experiments/), it's kind
>> of awesome. It also made me rethink our approach to handling the data.
>>
>> I think the rolling average approach we were taking is more precise than
>> accurate. As these are statistical events they really need error bars.
>> Because when we have a quiet night, and 1 job fails at 6am in the
>> morning, the 100% failure rate it reflects in grenade needs to be
>> quantified that it was 1 of 1, not 50 of 50.
>>
>> So my feeling is we should move away from the point graphs we have, and
>> present these as weekly and daily failure rates (with graphs and error
>> bars). And slice those per job. My suggestion is that we do the actual
>> visualization with matplotlib because it's super easy to output that
>> from pandas data sets.
>>
>> Basically we'll be mining Elastic Search -> Pandas TimeSeries ->
>> transforms and analysis -> output tables and graphs. This is different
>> enough from our current jquery graphing that I want to get ACKs before
>> doing a bunch of work here and finding out people don't like it in
>> reviews.
>>
>> Also in this process upgrade the metadata that we provide for each of
>> those bugs so it's a little more clear what you are looking at.
>>
>> = Take over of /recheck =
>>
>> There is still a bunch of useful data coming in on "recheck bug ####"
>> data which hasn't been curated into ER queries. I think the right thing
>> to do is treat these as a work queue of bugs we should be building
>> patterns out of (or completely invalidating). I've got a preliminary
>> gerrit bulk query piece of code that does this, which would remove the
>> need of the daemon the way that's currently happening. The gerrit
>> queries are a little long right now, but I think if we are only doing
>> this on hourly cron, the additional load will be negligible.
>>
>> This would get us into a single view, which I think would be more
>> informative than the one we currently have.
>>
>> = Categorize all the jobs =
>>
>> We need a bit of refactoring to let us comment on all the jobs (not just
>> tempest ones). Basically we assumed pep8 and docs don't fail in the gate
>> at the beginning. Turns out they do, and are good indicators of infra /
>> external factor bugs. They are a part of the story so we should put them
>> in.
>>
>> = Multi Line Fingerprints =
>>
>> We've definitely found bugs where we never had a really satisfying
>> single line match, but we had some great matches if we could do multi
>> line.
>>
>> We could do that in ER, however it will mean giving up logstash as our
>> UI, because those queries can't be done in logstash. So in order to do
>> this we'll really need to implement some tools - cli minimum, which will
>> let us easily test a bug. A custom web UI might be in order as well,
>> though that's going to be it's own chunk of work, that we'll need more
>> volunteers for.
>>
>> This would put us in a place where we should have all the infrastructure
>> to track 90% of the race conditions, and talk about them in certainty as
>> 1%, 5%, 0.1% bugs.
>>
>>      -Sean
>>
>
> Let's add regexp query support to elastic-recheck so that I could have
> fixed this better:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/65303/
>
> Then I could have just filtered the build_name with this:
>
> build_name:/(check|gate)-(tempest|grenade)-[a-z\-]+/

If you want to extend the query files with:

regex:
    - build_name: /(check|gate)-(tempest|grenade)-[a-z\-]+/
    - some_other_field: /some other regex/

And make it work with the query builder, I think we should consider it. 
It would be good to know how much more expensive those queries get 
though, because our ES is under decent load as it is.

	-Sean



-- 
Sean Dague
Samsung Research America
sean at dague.net / sean.dague at samsung.com
http://dague.net