-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
Starfish Tracing Model #83
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@ | ||
- Start Date: 2023-03-29 | ||
- RFC Type: feature | ||
- RFC PR: [#83](https://github.com/getsentry/rfcs/pull/83) | ||
- RFC Status: draft | ||
|
||
# Summary | ||
|
||
This RFC proposes a new tracing model for Sentry's performance product to better | ||
address future product improvements. The goal of this model is to allow | ||
**storing entire traces without gaps**, support **dynamic sampling**, **indexing | ||
of spans** and to **extract metrics from spans pre-sampling**. This is an | ||
evolution of the current transaction based approach. | ||
|
||
# Motivation | ||
|
||
Today Sentry has a strong concept of a "transaction" which appears in multiple parts of the | ||
product. It is both the transport of span data, the billable entity and the only indexed | ||
part of the product experience. This means that spans that exist outside of the transaction | ||
cannot be represented and it also means that spans within a transaction are not indexed. | ||
|
||
The existing model has worked well for us to get started with evolving the Sentry errors | ||
product to capture performance traces, but it has restricted our ability to evolve the product | ||
forward. It has created some restrictions on the SDK technology side (from high | ||
memory pressure, payload size limits) and also has promoted a separation of transactions and | ||
spans on the API layer which is untypical for tracing products. It also has meant that Sentry | ||
has challenges with accepting traces coming directly from an OpenTelemetry exporter as the | ||
transaction concept is not a concept that OpenTelemetry has. | ||
|
||
We want to set a future direction that enables more flexible product choices and that we can | ||
move towards from our existing tracing model. The goals are: | ||
|
||
* Support capturing entire traces | ||
* Have a data model story that allows us higher compatibility with Open Telemetry. Specifically | ||
we want a model that would permit us to ingest Open Telemetry data right from an exporter | ||
* Have a clear story for indexing and extracing metrics on a per-span level | ||
* Unified spans and transactions from an SDK perspective | ||
* Enable a path that allows clients to send 100% of spans outwards at least to a local aggregator, | ||
preferrably a remote relay | ||
* To better and directly support dynamic sampling in the core tracing model | ||
|
||
We want to lay out a better path forward that | ||
|
||
* capture entire traces | ||
* browser tabs = a trace | ||
* index and extract metrics on a span level | ||
* clients send 100% of metrics | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. maybe this is in the TODO, but how does this proposal help with this "100% sending" or "memory-pressure/payload size" issue listed above? what about the current CPU overhead? It is helpful for me to remember our own sampling limits, even after dynamic sampling has been implemented, are often set extremely low for performance reasons https://github.com/getsentry/sentry/blob/cc47128efd5a00e66b2475acc318ff57860fdf94/src/sentry/utils/sdk.py#L35 There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. even with a local relay I don't understand how we could ever have metrics sampled enough to be useful for SLAs / Alerts where performance of the process is not severely degraded in medium throughput and above processes. It seems to me the only way to accomplish this is for metrics collection directly in the process. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. ah maybe this is what
is going to address? |
||
* dynamic sampling narrows in on traces | ||
|
||
# Terms | ||
|
||
The new tracing model is an extension to our existing tracing model. As such we try to adhere | ||
to some of the existing terms. Note that this document is intentionally glossing over some of | ||
the details to better describe the desired end result. Individual RFCs will have to be written | ||
to narrow down on specific schema definitions. | ||
|
||
## Session | ||
|
||
A session is an optional concept when talking about user actors on the system. A | ||
session outlives one or more traces and is exclusively used when talking about human | ||
interactions with a system. | ||
|
||
## Trace | ||
|
||
A trace has no end. It bundles spans together, some of those spans are organized | ||
into segments (marked in red in the graph). The user experience does not center | ||
around a trace, which really is an internal way to bundle things together but it | ||
narrows down on segments within the trace. | ||
|
||
```mermaid | ||
gantt | ||
title Example Starfish Trace | ||
dateFormat x | ||
axisFormat %S.%L | ||
|
||
section Frontend | ||
/checkout :crit, 0, 1500ms | ||
GET /api/session :150, 170ms | ||
POST /api/analytics :190, 70ms | ||
GET /api/checkout/state :200, 500ms | ||
GET /api/checkout/cart :1100, 140ms | ||
<App/> :1300, 180ms | ||
POST /api/analytics :done, 1450, 70ms | ||
GET /assistent/poll :done, 1450, 120ms | ||
POST /api/analytics :done, 1580, 70ms | ||
|
||
section API Service | ||
/api/checkout/state :crit, 240, 440ms | ||
cache.get session#58;[redacted] :360, 10ms | ||
db.query select from session :370, 20ms | ||
db.query select from user :390, 20ms | ||
db.query select from checkout :410, 20ms | ||
http.request GET http#58;//payments/poll :450, 210ms | ||
thread.spawn refresh-checkout-cache :done, 670, 220ms | ||
|
||
section Payment Service | ||
/poll :crit, 470, 180ms | ||
db.query select from payment :490, 30ms | ||
db.query update payment :530, 60ms | ||
``` | ||
|
||
## Span | ||
AbhiPrasad marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
Spans behave very similar to how the function today, but they get elevated to a more significant | ||
level. They largely follow the general semantics in the wider tracing eco system. To drive | ||
our product ideas we are going to ensure that the quality of the spans is high and that they | ||
provide at least the following pieces of information: | ||
|
||
* `op`: defines the core operation that the span represents (eg: `db.query`) | ||
* `description`: the most significant description of what this operation is (eg: the database query). | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I would heavily be in favor of re-naming this to For those unfamiliar we currently have an inconsistency in the sentry schema where transactions have a I think most users are familiar with name as an attribute (closer to otel and other vendors as well then), and it would require less delta for us to approach. We even alias span descriptions to names in the UI There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think if we want to get rid of There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I don't think we need to get rid of description, simply just call it |
||
The description also gets processed and cleaned in the process. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. How do we expect to use this? @nikhars , if this is going to be a searchable field you may want to look into ngram indexes. |
||
* `trace_id`: a span relates to one trace by ID | ||
mitsuhiko marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
* `parent_span_id`: a span optionally points back to a parent trace which could be from a different | ||
service | ||
* `segment_id`: a span that is part of a segment, always refers back to it by the segment's | ||
`span_id`. | ||
* `is_segment`: when set to `true` this span is a segment. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If segment is meant to be either a transaction or an interaction, should we build it into the spec here? so |
||
* `start_time` and `end_time` to give the span time information. | ||
* `tags`: a key/value pair of arbitrary tags that are set per-span. Conceptually however spans | ||
also inherit the tags of the segments they are contained in. | ||
* `measurements`: are span specific metrics that are stored with the span. There is a natural | ||
measurement of a span which is the `duration` which is automatically calculated from the difference | ||
of the end to the start timestamp. | ||
|
||
Spans always belong to a trace, but not all spans belong to a segment. A span not belonging to a | ||
segment are referred to as "detached" spans, spans that belong to a segment are "attached" spans. | ||
A span must only be attached to a segment if it belongs to the same process and service. Remote | ||
spans must never be attached to a segment. | ||
mitsuhiko marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
## Transaction | ||
|
||
Previously transaction referred to the container that held spans. In the future a "transaction" | ||
refers to the name of a specific type of segment level span that describes a meaningful activity | ||
that starts with a request, and results in some meaningful response. By definition a span that | ||
holds a transaction tag becomes a "segment". Other than that, it's just a regular span. | ||
|
||
## Segment | ||
|
||
A segment is a special type of span that is the "logical" activity in a service. For instance a | ||
segment can be the endpoint implementation of an API request, it could be a task that is processed | ||
by a task worker, it could be the navigation a user performs in a UI or a screen transition. | ||
Conceptionally segments fall into two categories: "transactions" which are quite mechanical and | ||
clearly defined operations and "interactions" which are user triggered operations. The difference | ||
is that an "interaction" has a human user as an actor in it, that might influence it, whereas a | ||
"transaction" is unlikely to be interrupted once started. A user for instance is quite likely to | ||
navigate again even before the previous interaction finished, whereas a task is more likely than not | ||
to conclude, even if what triggered the task is no longer interested in the result of the task. | ||
|
||
The primary user experience in the product can narrow down on certain segments and make the trace | ||
explorable via that segment. | ||
|
||
**Locality:** All the spans that are attached to a segment thus must be local to the service and process. It's | ||
still possible for a span to relate to a child of a segment or a segment directly via the `parent_span_id`, | ||
but the `segment_id` must not be set. | ||
|
||
**Joining:** At the end of a segment an implicit join is taking place. Any span | ||
*that has not concluded | ||
yet will be detached from the segment. In the following example the `<App/>` | ||
span is part of the segment `/checkout` still where as the HTTP request related | ||
spans that did not finish when the `/checkout` segment ended are then detached: | ||
|
||
```mermaid | ||
gantt | ||
title Trace Showing Attached and Detached Spans | ||
dateFormat x | ||
axisFormat %S.%L | ||
|
||
section Frontend | ||
/checkout :crit, 0, 500ms | ||
<App/> :300, 180ms | ||
POST /api/analytics :done, 450, 70ms | ||
GET /assistent/poll :done, 450, 120ms | ||
POST /api/analytics :done, 580, 70ms | ||
``` | ||
|
||
**Logical Tag Promotion:** tags attached to a segment logically also belong to the | ||
spans contained within. This does not mean that tags are actually duplicated down | ||
to all child spans, but for instance it means that if a `release` or `environment` | ||
tag is attached to a segment, then it also automatically extends to all the child | ||
spans that are attached to that segment. This is particularly relevant for metrics | ||
extraction. | ||
|
||
**Logical Metrics Promotion:** certain metrics relating to the composition of child | ||
attached child spans are promoted to the segment. For instance the break downs | ||
(how much time was spent in db vs http) that previously was a transaction level | ||
property now is calculated onto the segment. Likewise we might consider counting | ||
number of spans of a certain category per segment and have these counters be | ||
promoted into the segment. | ||
|
||
## Batches | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I have an interest in a tracing model that actually works for batched workloads. I'm trying to figure out how a tracing story could work for arroyo, and so far it seems that one would both:
so that to me implies that one transaction may have multiple parent traces that's the only solution i could make sense of, but it sucks for a lot of reasons, so I'm curious whether we have a better plan here |
||
|
||
TODO: document me. | ||
|
||
# Metrics | ||
|
||
The starfish tracing model does not enable metrics ingestion, but it allows attaching | ||
metrics to spans. Span bound metrics are called "measurements". Every span gets a | ||
default measurement called `duration` attached to it but other measurements can be | ||
added. For instance LCP and other important web vitals can be attached directly to a | ||
segment as measurement. SDKs can add further measurements to spans if they see | ||
value in it. For instance if the SDK understands how long it waited for the | ||
establishing of a connection it could attach a `socket.connect_time` or similar | ||
numbers. Other examples might be things like `cache.result_size` etc. | ||
|
||
Measurements are ingested broken down by segment and span level tags before dynamic | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I am a little concerned about breaking down by all tags and letting these be arbitrary. |
||
sampling throws away data. | ||
|
||
# Drawbacks | ||
|
||
# TODO | ||
|
||
* metrics extraction | ||
* tag propagation | ||
* transitional mapping | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Which types of aggregation do you have in mind here ?
Is that the usual metrics extraction or something else?