Launchpad entry: foundations-r-phased-updates
Packages affected: update-manager
Push out stable release updates to expanding subsets of the userbase so that serious regressions can be detected before updates are pushed to everyone, and the process stopped. The aim is for regressions to affect a smaller proportion of our userbase.
StableReleaseUpdates will no longer appear in update-manager at the same time for all machines. Instead a subset of machines will be selected at random to receive the update first. The update will only be made available to everyone if there are no serious regressions encountered by the first set of users. There is still a testing process completed by Ubuntu developers before any users receive the update.
Giving an entirely new version of any widely used software program to our entire user base all at once is unnecessarily fraught with peril.
Instead, let's employ a phased update strategy wherein we provide the updated software to an ever-expanding set of random users. This pool of users will be grown as our confidence of that software update grows, fed by realtime information from the crash database and other potential sources.
This process will be developed in tandem with the efforts to increase testing of packages in -proposed so that we have more confidence in the updates we are pushing out. This process will add to that the ability to pull an update before a large number of users encounter it.
As an Ubuntu User
I want to encounter regressions in stable release updates less frequently
so that I can get my work done
As an Ubuntu developer
I want to get feedback about regressions before everyone installs the update
so that I can reduce the number of affected users
As an Ubuntu pre-release tester
I want to install all updates immediately
so that I can see breakage as quickly as possible
update-manager will treat an update available only when the computer is in the current testing set for that update.
A computer is in the testing set if Phased-Update-Percentage ✕ 2128 ≥ md5(machine id + package name + package version).
(2128 is the maximum number producable by the md5 function.)
This algorithm requires only the package record and the machine id to execute and is fairly fast so shouldn't slow down the time to calculate the list of available updates significantly.
It is deterministic so that it will always answer the same for a particular package and version at a particular threshold. It does vary based on package and version though, so that the same set of users aren't always the ones that find the regressions.
- Is the algorithm correct?
- What do we want to call the new field?
- What should update manager do if there is another version of the package available and the algorithm answers no for the latest? e.g. security update and newer package in -updates. If it won't install the -updates version, should it install the -security? Probably.
- If update manager pops up once a week does it make the phased updates rather useless?
- Assuming that the default is one week, and there is a fairly uniform distribution on which day of the week that is, we will find that the actual percentage of people with the update installed lags the set number fairly significantly. How much depends on how promptly people install the updates. If everyone installs as soon as the popup happens the update will take about a week longer than the ideal curve to fully propogate, but a majority of people will have the update installed by the time it reaches 100% on the server side.
- We can't know exactly what the current percentage is, only guess based on the phase of the update.
- When pausing an update the phase should be bought down to 0 to prevent others installing it, and then ramped back up, or jumped to the previous value.
- Given that the phase doesn't control the percentage of machines with the update installed very strongly, and the "open weekly" default for non-security updates provides some sort of phasing, the main thing this scheme provides is the ability to pause an update without deleting it from -updates. Is that worth the effort?
- Combining phased updates with an option in update-manager to still only show non-security updates (combined with a change to calculate that based on whether the updates will be shown for the particular machine) makes sense to balance our control in pushing out updates, with the users desire to not be bothered by update prompts every day.
- Given that it is machine based someone with multiple machines will see the updates at different times. Is that too confusing? Should there be a way to turn it off (opt in to testing)?
On the server side the new Phased-Update-Percentage field needs to be populated when we want to phase an update.
Launchpad will insert this into the package record. It therefore needs to know what value to insert. Where should it be stored in Launchpad?
An API will be added to Launchpad to set the value, and it will be controlled by ubuntu-sru (ubuntu-archive?).
I think that this should be akin to component/section/priority overrides: that is, it should be a column on BinaryPackagePublishingHistory and it could most easily be set by adding another optional parameter to BinaryPackagePublishingHistory.changeOverride. This will have the effect of creating a new publication for the package, so it will be beneficial not to change the value too often (perhaps once a day or so); but in order to get the LP archive publisher to generate a new Packages stanza a new publication is necessary anyway, so this is true regardless. BinaryPackagePublishingHistory.changeOverride is restricted to ubuntu-archive. --cjwatson
A script will then be run to set these values. When a package is pushed into -updates the script will start to increase the percentage over time, using some to-be-defined function of the age of the package, and possibly the urgency.
There will be an override to that aging that will allow ubuntu-sru to pause the script for a particular package that can be used when there are suspected regressions. Once it has been decided what to do the package can either be superseded in updates, in which case the process will start again for the new version, or the rollout will be continued.
Pre-release versions of Ubuntu should be opted out of phased updates by default.
The “Updates” panel of the Contributor Console should let testers opt out of phased updates post-release, or opt in to phased updates pre-release (to test the phasing mechanism itself).
- Where should the information be stored in Launchpad?
- Who should be allowed to change the value?
- How should the process be paused for a particular package?
- What should the rollout curve look like?
- An automatic link could be added from the error tracker to the rollout script so that it pauses propagation if there is a spike in crashes with the new version.
Replace that heading with headings for each thing you’re changing or specifying.
- Have you reviewed the bug reports for the relevant package? (Yes, this may take an hour or two. But you might be able to fix multiple bugs with a well-designed change.)
- If any user interface is involved, is it fully described? Include any wireframes or mockups.
- Have you had any new user interface, or new visible text, reviewed by a designer? (Or if you are a designer, have you had it peer-reviewed?)
- Is the change accessible? (For example, have you specified accessible labels for any graphic-only elements?)
- How will users learn the new way of doing things? Describe any help pages required, and any changes to the Ubuntu Web site or installer slideshow.
- Is any migration of data or settings required?
How will the feature be tested? Please add an entry to http://testcases.qa.ubuntu.com/Coverage/NewFeatures for tracking test coverage.