by

Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
    Joshua MacDonald
    @jmacd
    @tigrannajaryan I'm concerned that the OTel collector is bogging itself down with this logs work. When do we expect to be rid of the internal OpenCensus data format used throughout the collector?
    IOW if withholding an approval will help us get to 1.0 sooner, I will do that.
    Tigran Najaryan
    @tigrannajaryan
    @jmacd getting rid of the internal OpenCensus data format is blocked by finalizing the protocol definitions. We are not going to start working on metrics conversion when metrics protocol is in such fluid state since every change in a protocol definition breaks Collector internal code.
    Things are better for trace part. Trace-related components in the Core are now converted to OTLP with the exception of Zipkin. Collector core maintainers do not intend to convert contrib components. We will publish guidelines for contributors to convert their components once we are certain trace protocol is final and we are not going to make further changes to it in the near future. I am deliberately delaying this to avoid asking contributors to redo their work again.
    Logs work is done by different people (me) and has no effect on this (since I am not doing conversion work - it is primarily Bogdan and others).
    Withholding log approval is not going to help with this in any way. Expediting metric work and finalizing metric protocol will help.
    Joshua MacDonald
    @jmacd
    Traces are still using the OpenCensus format internally, yes? This is going to hamper performance. I still feel that logs is a distraction and that the charter for OTel includes spans and metrics until it reaches 1.0
    Tigran Najaryan
    @tigrannajaryan
    @jmacd No. Traces are using OTLP for most of core components (except Zipkin).
    Joshua MacDonald
    @jmacd
    Thanks. I had heard otherwise as recently as this morning.
    I recommend a SIG for logging w/ its own approvers. For me, paying attention to logs will slow down metrics..
    Tigran Najaryan
    @tigrannajaryan
    Having log approvers makes sense to me.
    @bogdandrutu I believe we were already moving in the direction of having separate approvers for signals, right?
    Joshua MacDonald
    @jmacd
    It's "approved" for metrics, but not deployed.
    Bogdan Drutu
    @bogdandrutu
    I am moving to that direction, final cleanups before we enable that
    jeffalder
    @jeffalder
    @zenmoto is gitter a good communication mechanism? LMK if there’s a better option.
    David Poncelow
    @zenmoto
    @jeffalder it should be, though you may have to @ me if I don’t reply here. I’ll be better about running the client so I get notifications.
    jeffalder
    @jeffalder
    Roman Inflianskas
    @rominf
    This message was deleted
    2 replies
    Omer Katz
    @thedrow
    Hi, I would very much be interested to join this effort
    1 reply
    One of the things I'm wondering about is how we'd model logging inside the application.
    Omer Katz
    @thedrow
    Does the SDK provide a logging mechanism or should we use whatever we'd like and the collector will collect it from files/journald etc.
    4 replies
    Rahul M Chheda
    @rahulchheda
    Hi, would like to contribute to these efforts, went through the previous meeting agendas and results. Could somebody point me towards the repo, or github link for OTEP for logging?
    2 replies
    haojhcwa
    @haojhcwa
    Just like to share a small tool we used to benchmark our various log agent implementation, it is still a work in progress with many features pending, feel free to contribute or share your opnion: https://github.com/awslabs/amazon-log-agent-benchmark-tool
    Jonah Kowall
    @jkowall
    The PR for the spec seems like there are a bunch of vendor specific things. Why do Splunk need SignalFX events and Splunk events? Same with the google/amazon log fields, we could make those generic versus specific.
    Tristan Sloughter
    @tsloughter
    hm? that isn't the case. also the otep PR is not the spec, it is the process before a spec is written
    ah saw your comments on the PR. don't think you should worry about getting in a logz.io mapping/example to the OTEP. -- unless you think it shows something that would require changing the otep, but the otep isn't the spec so the spec isn't in stone after its merger
    I didn't bother sending an Erlang mapping like there is for log4j and zap because I don't think it would add anything to the otep, but there certainly will be one when the spec is complete
    Tigran Najaryan
    @tigrannajaryan
    Mark Carter
    @markcartertm_twitter
    @tigrannajaryan thank you for all the amazing work and your leadership πŸ‘πŸ»πŸ™πŸ»
    Rahul M Chheda
    @rahulchheda
    Congrats @tigrannajaryan ! That's great!
    Omer Katz
    @thedrow
    :tada:
    Tigran Najaryan
    @tigrannajaryan
    Thanks everyone for reviewing and providing valuable feedback. Next: logging libraries, log protocol and log data support in Collector.
    Reece Bradley
    @reecebradley
    πŸŽˆπŸŽ‰
    Tigran Najaryan
    @tigrannajaryan
    @/all I have to move the SIG meeting time today to 11am PT avoid the overlap with OpenTelemetry Community meeting.
    Pablo
    @voomik
    I am not sure if this is the correct location to ask this question; however, are there specific individuals that are allowed to participate in the Log SIG meetings? I am looking to listen on the calls, but I am open to contributing. TIA!
    Christian Beedgen
    @kumoroku
    calls are open, please do dial in!
    Pablo
    @voomik
    Fantastic. I will join :-)
    jeffalder
    @jeffalder
    What’s the room for the 11am? Still https://zoom.us/j/8203130519 ?
    Pablo
    @voomik
    You were in the right room @jeffalder . Meeting ended already.
    Leighton Chen
    @lzchen
    Wasn't the meeting mved to 11am?
    Pablo
    @voomik
    Yes 11am PT
    Omer Katz
    @thedrow
    So how come it already ended?
    Or maybe I got the timezones confused
    Pablo
    @voomik
    Seems like the updates were light? That was my first time attending, so I am not familiar with the procedures.
    Christian Beedgen
    @raychaser
    yes, this was a very quick meeting today! we often go for the full hour
    generally, check out the meeting agenda/notes doc:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cX5fWXyWqVVzYHSFUymYUfWxUK5hT97gc23w595LmdM ––read backwards a bit and it will hopefully provide a bunch of context
    as Tigran said, getting the Log Data Model approved was a big step that will now allow some implementation to start https://github.com/open-telemetry/oteps/blob/master/text/0097-log-data-model.md
    Omer Katz
    @thedrow
    But we need to decide how we want to do this
    Do any of you know eliot? The Python structured logging library?
    Tigran Najaryan
    @tigrannajaryan
    @/all please review a tiny amendment to Log Data Model: open-telemetry/oteps#109
    Omer Katz
    @thedrow

    Do any of you know eliot? The Python structured logging library?

    I'd like to start discussing the API for our logging SDK

    Anyone up for it?
    Avi Kessner
    @avik-so
    I'm starting to define an internal project for logging, and I was hoping to be able to take advantage of open telemetry. I'd be happy to participate in the logging API.