On 2018/02/27 16:39:02, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't realize HTrace was struggling in incubation. Maybe some of us can > start participating? The project did start within Accumulo, after all. What > does it need? I also wouldn't want to go back to maintaining cloudtrace. >
I suspect it's too late for HTrace. The last commit to the main development branch was May 2017. They had a decent run of activity in 2015 and an almost-resurgence in 2016, but they never really got enough community traction to survive the normal ebb and flow of contributor involvement. They need the things any project needs to be sustainable: regular release cadences, a responsive contribution process, and folks to do the long slog of building interest via e.g. production adoption. > I'm unfamiliar with OpenTracing, but it was my understanding that Zipkin > was more of a tracing sink, than an instrumentation API. HTrace is actually > listed as an instrumentation library for Zipkin (among others). > I think the key is that for a instrumentation library to get adoption it needs a good sink that provides utility to operators looking to diagnose problems. It took too long for HTrace to provide any tooling that could help with even simple performance profiling. Maybe hooking it into Zipkin would get around that. Personally, I never managed to get the two to actually work together. My listing Zipkin as an option merely reflects my prioritization of practical impact of whatever we go to. I don't want to adopt some blue-sky effort. FWIW, OpenTracing docs at least claim to also provide a zipkin-sink compatible runtime. There's a whole community that just does distributed monitoring, maybe someone has time to survey some spaces and see if OpenTracing has any legs.
