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

Multi-metrics throttler: post v21 deprecations and changes #16915

Open
wants to merge 16 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

shlomi-noach
Copy link
Contributor

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach commented Oct 8, 2024

Description

Multi metrics throttler was introduced in v21 and was backwards compatible with the v20 single-metric throttler. Compatibility included gRPC, command line flags, etc.

Starting v22, we remove single-metric throttler compatibility. This PR implements various topics seen in:

Changes in this PR:

  • Remove MultiMetricsEnabled and its usage. It is assumed to be true in v22.
  • Remove expired/unthrottled rules from topo rather than set them to 0 expiration duration
  • Remove --check-as-check-self and --cehck-as-check-shard command line flags and all related implementation.
  • Remove all HTTP StatusCode usage.

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Oct 8, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Oct 8, 2024
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach added Type: Internal Cleanup Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: Throttler and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Oct 8, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Oct 8, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 8, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 23.33333% with 46 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.39%. Comparing base (f6067e0) to head (3db21e4).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
go/vt/vttablet/tabletserver/tabletserver.go 0.00% 15 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/schemamanager/tablet_executor.go 0.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtctl/grpcvtctldserver/server.go 0.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtctl/vtctl.go 0.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/vcursor_impl.go 0.00% 6 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vttablet/tabletmanager/rpc_throttler.go 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
.../tabletserver/throttle/base/self_metric_loadavg.go 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vttablet/tabletserver/throttle/check.go 75.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16915      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.40%   67.39%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1570     1570              
  Lines      252903   252834      -69     
==========================================
- Hits       170460   170386      -74     
- Misses      82443    82448       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach marked this pull request as ready for review November 4, 2024 06:00
@@ -534,11 +528,11 @@ func WaitForValidData(t *testing.T, tablet *cluster.Vttablet, timeout time.Durat

for {
checkResp, checkErr := http.Get(checkURL)
if checkErr != nil {
if checkErr == nil {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We don't want to have a require.NoError(t, checkErr) here before the defer, getting rid of the conditional check? Same below.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not in this case, because this is a wait-for function, and I'm OK ignoring the error as long as the function eventually succeeds within the given timeout. So I don't care that there could be multiple errors, and I don't want to report the test as failed.

@@ -831,8 +829,7 @@ enum CheckThrottlerResponseCode {
}

message CheckThrottlerResponse {
// StatusCode is HTTP compliant response code (e.g. 200 for OK)
int32 status_code = 1;
reserved 1; // was `status_code`, HTTP compliant, deprecated
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we care about reserving the name too? I'm not sure, just asking. We can always do that later since your comment clearly indicates what the name was. It's also fine to eventually reuse field names, as long the json/text encodings are still usable and sensible.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added reserved names.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Throttler Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Type: Internal Cleanup
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants