Hi Piotr, thanks for the proposal, I see the need for reporting child spans, however I have a couple of questions about the proposed design:
1. Why do we give up on the idea of reporting child spans independently from the parent? I couldn't find much details in the Rejected Alternatives section 2. If at some point we come up with a way to address (1), then having a reference from child to parent would be more flexible? And probably not in the form of object reference, but just as a (String) identifier? Regards, Roman On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 2:41 PM Piotr Nowojski <pnowoj...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all! > > I would like to open up for discussion a new FLIP-483 [1]. > > Motivation > FLIP-384 [2] added trace/span reporting capability to Flink, which has been > used in a couple of places, like reporting checkpointing and recovery > processes. > > With flat/childless structure of spans it is difficult to accurately report > checkpointing or recovery. Single top level span for checkpointing or > recovery is currently aggregating some metrics, like maximum and sum of how > long did the state download/upload take. However this hides some details, > like how long each task and/or subtask was downloading the state. > > In this FLIP we want to introduce a general mechanism for reporting > children spans. > > For more information please look into the FLIP-483 [1]. > > I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this. > > Best, > Piotrek > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/4IyMEw > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/TguZE >
