Josh, It was exclusively the first - using the traces in the server-side code. The most common case is "I have a scan which is much slower than expected", and couldn't figure out why. I'm trying to think of alternative approaches to using the traces, and honestly, doing a bunch of log aggregation is the alternative I'd have to fall back to, and in some cases recompiling parts of accumulo with new log messages in place.
Tony On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > Oh, that's a pleasant surprise to hear, actually. > > Anything you can share with the class, Tony? Would love to hear (even if > brief) how it was used and benefited you. > > Specifically, I'm curious if... > > * You looked at traces from our server-side instrumented code > * You instrumented your own code outside of Accumulo and used Accumulo as > the backing store > * You instrumented code inside/outside Accumulo and benefited from the > server-side instrumentation (e.g. your code's spans collapsing with the > server's spans) > > > On 2/27/18 6:52 PM, Tony Kurc wrote: > >> I'd personally be disappointed to see it removed. There is a bit of a >> learning curve and startup cost to use it now, but when diagnosing major >> challenges, it has been an invaluable capability. >> >> On Feb 27, 2018 3:15 PM, "Josh Elser" <els...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Wow... that's, erm, quite the paper. Nothing like taking some pot-shots at >> another software project and quoting folks out of context. >> >> Does it help to break down the problem some more? >> >> * Is Accumulo getting benefit from tracing its library? >> * Is Accumulo getting benefit from tracing context including HDFS calls? >> >> I feel like it is a nice tool to have in your toolbelt (having used it >> successfully in the past), but I wonder if it's the most effective thing >> to >> keep inside of Accumulo. Specifically, would it be better to just pull >> this >> out of Accumulo outright? >> >> I don't think I have an opinion yet. >> >> >> On 2/27/18 1:08 PM, Ed Coleman wrote: >> >> For general discussion - Facebook recently (Oct 28, 2017) published a >>> paper on tracing: Canopy: An End-to-End Performance Tracing and Analysis >>> System (https://research.fb.com/publications/canopy-end-to-end- >>> performance-tracing-at-scale/) >>> >>> As a bonus, they referenced Accumulo and HTrace in section 2.2 >>> >>> "Mismatched models affected compatibility between mixed system versions; >>> e.g. Accumulo and Hadoop were impacted by the “continued lack of concern >>> in >>> the HTrace project around tracing during upgrades” >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Tony Kurc [mailto:tk...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:57 PM >>> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] tracing framework updates >>> >>> I have some experience with opentracing, and it definitely seems >>> promising, however, potentially promising in the same way htrace was... >>> That being said, I did a cursory thought exercise of what it would take >>> to >>> do a swap of the current tracing in accumulo to opentracing, and I didn't >>> come across any hard problems, meaning it could be a fairly >>> straightforward >>> refactor. I was hoping to explore the community a bit more at some >>> upcoming >>> conferences >>> >>> On Feb 27, 2018 11:59 AM, "Sean Busbey" <bus...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 2018/02/27 16:39:02, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
