Jaeger – A Distributed Tracing System • Hacker News Board

Re: Jaeger – A Distributed Tracing System

#61

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 3:16 PM UTC

jpkrohling_jpk wrote: post #55

jhinds wrote: post #4

Neat! I was looking into tracing solutions for our k8s cluster the other day and was going to look into setting up Zipkin. Now I'll this to my list of tools to evaluate. I found this blog post by uber informative https://eng.uber.com/distributed-tracing/ so maybe there is no need to even setting up Zipkin and just start with Jaegar?

If you want to trace applications deployed on Kubernetes, you might benefit from Jaeger's Kubernetes templates: https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger-kubernetes

[deleted]

Re: Jaeger – A Distributed Tracing System

#62

Post by dankohn1 » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 3:45 PM UTC

dastbe wrote: post #46

dankohn1 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're very welcome. You cannot imagine the amount of criticism it has engendered.

How do you plan on keeping it sane over time? Even disregarding paring down the number of times managed major providers appear on the list (which is super sensible imo), won't it start to get quite crowded with all the open source competitors appearing?

The guidelines we're following are at: https://github.com/cncf/landscape#cloud-native-landscape-pro...

The CNCF storage WG is also looking at creating a "zoomed in" version of the storage section with higher fidelity information. That's one model of providing more detail.

We also have an interactive version of the landscape coming that will provide filtering, zooming, etc.

Re: Jaeger – A Distributed Tracing System

#63

Post by Dowwie » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 5:23 PM UTC

This seems like a horror story about a large company that decided to depart from monolithic architectures to one of microservices and found that one set of problems was exchanged for another. Was there a net gain?

Re: Jaeger – A Distributed Tracing System

#64

Post by apurvadave » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

pritianka wrote: post #36

khc wrote: post #7

Is it something similar to sysdig?

Sysdig is focused on the networking layer. This is for the application layer (L7).

Actually sysdig can do application, container, host, network. Most of sysdig use cases tend to be more focused on the software running on a node vs the network itself.

Re: Jaeger – A Distributed Tracing System

#65

Post by kuwze » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:12 PM UTC

Why would you use this over a logging framework?

Re: Jaeger – A Distributed Tracing System

#66

Post by el_bhs » Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 10:08 PM UTC

yoshuaw wrote: post #30

dankohn1 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most folks will choose either Zipkin or Jaeger, but both are OpenTracing-compatible distributed tracing systems. You might find the Cloud Native Landscape useful for thinking about the options: https://github.com/cncf/landscape/blob/master/README.md Disclosure: I’m the executive director of CNCF, which just adopted Jaeger 2 weeks ago, and I’m an author of the landscape.

Last I checked "OpenTracing-compatible" only went as far as using common terminology. Tbh I was a bit disappointed by this; has more been defined since? E.g. are there now shared schemas, APIs of sorts?

"OpenTracing-compatible" is strict API compatibility in any supported language. The cross-language spec is "terminology-based" since it's, well, cross-language.

There is an open issue about Envoy/linkerd/Istio support here: https://github.com/opentracing/specification/issues/86 (as well as in a number of other locations)

As an OpenTracing contributor, the core value prop still seems quite strong in that instrumentation of OSS dependencies is a massive pain point and should not be tracing-system-specific since it doesn't need to be. There is also value in common protocols and formats, and in that spirit there is interest in broadening scope to include those... though from seeing many companies adopt tracing tech, I haven't observed protocol compatibility as the main pain point or blocker.