-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 660
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
Remove jaeger #4995
Comments
What tools are you refering to here? I recently thought about how we can make debugging of parachains easier. I saw that we have some jaeger intregration in the codebase but have never used it. Did you use it before, what are the problems? |
The goal of this implementation was to be able to trace candidate progress in parachain consensus and get some idea on how much time is being spent in different stages. You can actually do some of that with some limitations, but the Grafana UX was never great and did not improve the debugging process over what can be achieved the same using just logs and searching for hashes. |
Jaeger spans were not usable for debugging, see #4995, but we pay a price in CPU cost, subsystem-benchmarks show this brings a reduction of about 10-15% in CPU usage per subsystem, so remove it. --------- Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gheorghe <[email protected]>
Jaeger tracing went mostly unused and it created bigger problems like wasting CPU or memory leaks, so remove it entirely. Fixes: #4995 --------- Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gheorghe <[email protected]>
In the past, jaeger spans were used for 2 purposes:
Now that we have better tools for all of them, and seems like the need for spans no longer exists.
So now jaeger is providing no value with a cpu cost. Along with quite big code blocks which make it harder to understand the logic in the code.
Also we can consider removing gum tracing which is a wrapping around tracing integrated with jaeger.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: