-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.1k
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
Track usability problems when RPC are split across span IDs #1480
Comments
cc @openzipkin/instrumentation-owners @fedj @openzipkin/core @cburroughs @rogeralsing |
cc @reta |
one can model single producer multiple consumer messages with a parent-child relationship similar to single-host spans in RPC. For example, by using X-B3-SpanId as the parent id of the consumer span, many consumers will end up as different spans. So, this pattern for single-host spans also applies to SPMC https://github.com/openzipkin/b3-propagation#why-is-parentspanid-propagated |
Before, if a client span was a parent of a server span, linking wouldn't work. See #1480
added #1656 to fix dependency linking. Noticed this when implementing the simple json thing |
Similar to ClientServerSameSpan in zipkin-go, this adds the ability to opt out of span sharing between the client and server side of an RPC. This is important when reporting to systems that do not share span IDs, such as Google Stackdriver and Amazon X-Ray. Note: this still defaults to true, in favor of existing Zipkin implementations. See openzipkin/zipkin#1480
Similar to ClientServerSameSpan in zipkin-go, this adds the ability to opt out of span sharing between the client and server side of an RPC. This is important when reporting to systems that do not share span IDs, such as Google Stackdriver and Amazon X-Ray. Note: this still defaults to true, in favor of existing Zipkin implementations. See openzipkin/zipkin#1480
This adds the ability to opt out of span sharing between the client and server side of an RPC. This is important when reporting to systems that do not share span IDs, such as Google Stackdriver and Amazon X-Ray. Note: this still defaults to true, in favor of existing Zipkin implementations. See openzipkin/zipkin#1480 See #395 See #459
Similar to ClientServerSameSpan in zipkin-go, this adds the ability to opt out of span sharing between the client and server side of an RPC. This is important when reporting to systems that do not share span IDs, such as Google Stackdriver and Amazon X-Ray. Note: this still defaults to true, in favor of existing Zipkin implementations. See openzipkin/zipkin#1480
Similar to ClientServerSameSpan in zipkin-go, this adds the ability to opt out of span sharing between the client and server side of an RPC. This is important when reporting to systems that do not share span IDs, such as Google Stackdriver and Amazon X-Ray. Note: this still defaults to true, in favor of existing Zipkin implementations. See openzipkin/zipkin#1480
Some are intentionally or accidentally splitting RPCs across different span IDs. For example, they might intentionally fork a span ID when receiving B3 headers. This could also happen when an intermediary forks a new span, but fails to report it to Zipkin. In either case, the client ends up as a parent span as opposed to the same span as the server.
The goal of this issue is to support the case where a client span is a parent of the server span in the existing model. This is a precondition of any work that assumes single-host (like #939), or at least a warning of what glitches will occur until single-host RPC spans are supported.
Here are the main feature areas to explore:
transparent proxies should be unimpacted as they just sent headers across without changing them or reporting anything to zipkin anyway.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: