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

Should tracers/loggers/meters be enabled by default #3983

Open
lmolkova opened this issue Apr 3, 2024 · 9 comments
Open

Should tracers/loggers/meters be enabled by default #3983

lmolkova opened this issue Apr 3, 2024 · 9 comments
Labels
area:sdk Related to the SDK spec:metrics Related to the specification/metrics directory spec:trace Related to the specification/trace directory triage:deciding:community-feedback Open to community discussion. If the community can provide sufficient reasoning, it may be accepted

Comments

@lmolkova
Copy link
Contributor

lmolkova commented Apr 3, 2024

Related to #3877 and #3867

Currently OTel does not control how traces/meters are enabled. It's usually controlled by users who install an instrumentation library (standalone or via distro) and sometimes explicitly enable/disable instrumentations or parts of them.
Different languages and distros use different approaches. Logs rely on existing logging library configuration.

As OTel adoption grows, we see more native instrumentations, more instrumentation libs in the distros, and more details recorded by them and we need a mechanism to enable and disable instrumentation scopes (see #3867 for the context and #3877 for the solution).

One of the problems is picking reasonable defaults for OTel SDKs (while allowing users and distros to tune/override them)

  • All registered meters/tracers are on by default:
    • this is an overwhelming experience, especially if we get into lower level network stack, web framework details, etc
  • All meters/tracers are off by default and users need to enable (e.g. in .NET you do tracerProviderBuilder.AddSource("Azure.*") to enable all tracers for Azure SDKs)
    • this is an underwhelming default experience
    • hard to discover what's instrumented, need to know what to enable
    • still hard to disable something specific or know which scope are more interesting than others
  • Something in between (does not exist), e.g.
    • Client spans are on, internal are off
    • Scopes marked with specific attribute with value higher than "important" are on (similar to log level)

Distros are able to mitigate most of the issues (e.g. provide good initial set of enabled instrumentations) with either of those approaches, but they still need to manually curate list of 'good' scopes for each library and have a default for the rest.

Full context in available in the #3877 (comment)

@lmolkova lmolkova added spec:miscellaneous For issues that don't match any other spec label area:sdk Related to the SDK spec:metrics Related to the specification/metrics directory spec:trace Related to the specification/trace directory and removed spec:miscellaneous For issues that don't match any other spec label labels Apr 3, 2024
@trask
Copy link
Member

trask commented Apr 4, 2024

maybe also related to #3205

@tedsuo tedsuo added the triage:deciding:community-feedback Open to community discussion. If the community can provide sufficient reasoning, it may be accepted label Apr 5, 2024
@tedsuo
Copy link
Contributor

tedsuo commented Apr 5, 2024

@lmolkova I suggest that we look into the ability to use file config syntax to disable instrumentation.

In general, my opinion is that instrumentation should be turned on by default. Otherwise, users have a very hard time discovering what instrumentation would be available.

@tedsuo tedsuo added triage:deciding:tc-inbox Needs attention from the TC in order to move forward and removed triage:deciding:tc-inbox Needs attention from the TC in order to move forward labels Apr 5, 2024
@trask
Copy link
Member

trask commented Apr 5, 2024

Distros are able to mitigate most of the issues (e.g. provide good initial set of enabled instrumentations) with either of those approaches, but they still need to manually curate list of 'good' scopes for each library and have a default for the rest.

👍

In the Java agent distro we've more or less landed on: "instrumentations which produce INTERNAL spans should be off by default, except for scheduled job instrumentations (which produce top-level INTERNAL spans)"

In general, my opinion is that instrumentation should be turned on by default. Otherwise, users have a very hard time discovering what instrumentation would be available.

this could also be a bad experience if say Hibernate natively instrumented itself producing INTERNAL spans. maybe that's not something we need to solve though, as there would likely be pushback on Hibernate to make this kind of instrumentation opt-in (via their own mechanism?)

@lmolkova
Copy link
Contributor Author

lmolkova commented Apr 5, 2024

I think we can only continue the journey of everything is on by default since we're already on it and changing it would be breaking anyway. But we can make it better with new features like verbosity.

We still have the consistency problem - at least some of the languages (.NET, not sure if there are any others) do "everything off by default" #3877 (comment)

@pyohannes
Copy link
Contributor

We still have the consistency problem - at least some of the languages (.NET, not sure if there are any others) do "everything off by default" #3877 (comment)

All languages I'm aware of do "everything off by default" if you're just using the plain OTel SDK (no distro or auto-instrumentation).

Obviously the situation is different when using a distro or auto-instrumentation. The .NET auto-instrumentation turns on a bunch of instrumentation libraries by default.

I'd agree there's a conceived inconsistency between languages where auto-instrumentation is the default use case (Java) and others where it isn't (.NET).

@cijothomas
Copy link
Member

All languages I'm aware of do "everything off by default" if you're just using the plain OTel SDK (no distro or auto-instrumentation).

I have a different understanding! All languages are on-by-default, and .NET is the exception with off-by-default, strictly from plain OTel SDK!

By "on-by-default", what I mean is - traces/metrics from every tracer/meter is automatically collected, without any particular user-action. In .NET, the Meter/TracerProvider must be explicitly configured with the list of Tracers/Meters to listen to.

For the below pseudo code, .NET requires the TracerProvider be explicitly configured with AddSource("foo") for the spans from this tracer to work. In other languages I have checked (C++, Rust, Python), there is no additional config required.

fooTracer = get-tracer("foo");
fooTracer.StartSpan("myspan");

@pyohannes
Copy link
Contributor

I have a different understanding! All languages are on-by-default, and .NET is the exception with off-by-default, strictly from plain OTel SDK!

@cijothomas You're right. For languages besides .NET it is enough to install and initialize instrumentation libraries, without additional SDK configuration. For .NET, additional SDK configuration is needed besides installing and initializing instrumentation libraries (for example AddSource or AddMeter on the SDK).

I was looking at it more from a user than from an SDK point of view: they have to install instrumentation libraries to "turn on" certain instrumentations. However, also from the user point of view my statement doesn't hold true when one takes into account native instrumentation (instrumentation in the instrumented library itself) which is enabled by default.

@austinlparker
Copy link
Member

It seems like there's some general agreement that 'on by default' is the expectation, would a PR clarifying that help?

@github-actions github-actions bot added the triage:followup Needs follow up during triage label Sep 19, 2024
@svrnm svrnm removed the triage:followup Needs follow up during triage label Sep 30, 2024
@svrnm
Copy link
Member

svrnm commented Sep 30, 2024

@lmolkova please take a look

@github-actions github-actions bot added the triage:followup Needs follow up during triage label Oct 1, 2024
@mtwo mtwo removed the triage:followup Needs follow up during triage label Oct 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area:sdk Related to the SDK spec:metrics Related to the specification/metrics directory spec:trace Related to the specification/trace directory triage:deciding:community-feedback Open to community discussion. If the community can provide sufficient reasoning, it may be accepted
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants