accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] tracing framework updates
Date Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:59:36 GMT

On 2018/02/27 16:39:02, Christopher <> 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

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

> 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.

View raw message