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

How do people use Instrumentation Library? #991

Closed
anuraaga opened this issue Sep 23, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed

How do people use Instrumentation Library? #991

anuraaga opened this issue Sep 23, 2020 · 6 comments
Labels
question Question for discussion release:after-ga Not required before GA release, and not going to work on before GA spec:miscellaneous For issues that don't match any other spec label

Comments

@anuraaga
Copy link
Contributor

I was reminded this by #989 and it relates to #823. The issue of cost of exporting instrumentation library to zipkin / jaeger came up in #989 so I'm curious - how do people use this field? I personally can't come up with a use case TBH. We have semantic conventions for real data. Handling spans in the backend based on what attributes are present, rather than what instrumentation reported them, seems most practical and fits with best practices we see in the browser like using feature detection instead of user agent parsing.

So curious, how do people use this field? Is it so important that we require non-OTLP exporters to send this information? I'm worried it's cost with no value for these other protocols, that the users end up paying.

Since #823 is marked post GA, does it make sense for non-OTLP export semantics to be kept unstable post GA? That would make me less worried about the story for them.

@anuraaga anuraaga added the spec:miscellaneous For issues that don't match any other spec label label Sep 23, 2020
@Oberon00
Copy link
Member

I personally can't come up with a use case TBH.

Please read the OTEP: https://github.com/open-telemetry/oteps/blob/master/text/0016-named-tracers.md

The main use case (which is still only a vision I think) is to be able to disable instrumentations or discard their data based on that. It's a robustness mechanism that would not be needed if everything runs smoothly.

@anuraaga
Copy link
Contributor Author

It's interesting that the point that made me think about this is because OTel will spam backends like Zipkin with this data :) Can we consider this an aspect of OTLP (if a backend is going to use this for protection, they will speak OTLP) and not deal with it in non-OTLP exporters where presumably the data won't be used?

@iNikem
Copy link
Contributor

iNikem commented Sep 23, 2020

It loosely resembles Jaeger "component" tag and can be used as a quick clue during debugging about which component/instrumentation produces such strange data (or does not). Even during development seeing spans from which instrumentation I receive and which not helps me tremendously in understanding, what is going on

@jkwatson
Copy link
Contributor

Echoing what @iNikem said: having the ability to see (in your tracing UI) what instrumentation is causing errant spans, and then to disable that instrumentation by name seems like a huge value-add for people supporting OpenTelemetry installations.

@andrewhsu andrewhsu added the release:after-ga Not required before GA release, and not going to work on before GA label Sep 25, 2020
@arminru arminru added the question Question for discussion label Sep 25, 2020
@iNikem
Copy link
Contributor

iNikem commented Oct 8, 2020

@anuraaga was your question answered? Can we now close this issue?

@anuraaga
Copy link
Contributor Author

anuraaga commented Oct 8, 2020

Yeah I think that's helpful, thanks

@anuraaga anuraaga closed this as completed Oct 8, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Question for discussion release:after-ga Not required before GA release, and not going to work on before GA spec:miscellaneous For issues that don't match any other spec label
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants