openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Juraci Paixão Kröhling <>
Subject Re: Adding OpenTracing support
Date Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:50:31 GMT

Would it then be OK to build a PoC to add OpenTracing capabilities 
around the Function executions? My goal is not to trace the internals of 
OpenWhisk, but rather provide tracing capabilities to the functions 
deployed into it.

- Juca.

On 06/14/2017 03:31 PM, Sandeep Paliwal wrote:
> Hi Juca,
> the current tracing changes integrate with the existing logging in OpenWhisk. OpenWhisk
logs messages which can be considered logical units in processing of and action invocation.
The tracing PR adds tracing capability to this existing mechanism.
> Zipkin library used supported Akka framework and made it easy to integrate with. I have
not explored Opentracing but once the tracing itself is made pluggable it will be just a matter
of individual preference.
> thanks,
> Sandeep
> On 2017-06-14 16:51 (+0530), Juraci Paixão Kröhling <>
>> On 06/14/2017 12:31 PM, Michael Marth wrote:
>>> I was in discussions with Sandeep before he created the PR for Zipkin support,
so I can give some background info:
>> Thanks for the info! I have a couple more questions, if you wouldn't mind.
>>> As a part of better understanding and improving the performance characteristics
of OW we were simply looking for a way to profile the whole system. Zipkin seemed (still seems)
to be fit for that job. So from our perspective plugability was not much of a concern, we
“simply” wanted to get to the data.
>> Is that for tracing OW internals (like a logging mechanism), or to
>> provide distributed tracing capabilities to functions?
>> Also, any pointers as to why the usage of Zipkin directly, and not
>> Zipkin's OpenTracing-compatible libraries? Perhaps you need some Zipkin
>> feature that's not part of the OT standard?
>> - Juca.

View raw message