Distributed Tracing
Patterns and practices for implementing distributed tracing across microservices and understanding request flows in distributed systems.
When to Use This Skill
- Implementing distributed tracing in microservices
- Debugging cross-service request issues
- Understanding trace propagation
- Choosing tracing infrastructure
- Correlating logs, metrics, and traces
Why Distributed Tracing?
Problem: Request flows through multiple services
How do you debug when something fails?
Without tracing:
User → API → ??? → ??? → Error somewhere
With tracing:
User → API (50ms) → OrderService (20ms) → PaymentService (ERROR: timeout)
└── Full visibility into request flowCore Concepts
Traces, Spans, and Context
Trace: End-to-end request journey
├── Span: Single operation within a service
│ ├── SpanID: Unique identifier
│ ├── ParentSpanID: Link to parent span
│ ├── TraceID: Shared across all spans
│ ├── Operation Name: What is being done
│ ├── Start/End Time: Duration
│ ├── Status: Success/Error
│ ├── Attributes: Key-value metadata
│ └── Events: Point-in-time annotations
│
└── Context: Propagated across service boundaries
├── TraceID
├── SpanID
├── Trace Flags
└── Trace StateTrace Visualization
TraceID: abc123
Service A (API Gateway)
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ 200ms
│
└─► Service B (Order Service)
├───────────────────────────────────┤ 150ms
│
├─► Service C (Inventory)
│ ├───────────────┤ 50ms
│
└─► Service D (Payment)
├───────────────────────┤ 80ms
│
└─► External API
├─────────┤ 60msOpenTelemetry
Overview
OpenTelemetry = Unified observability framework
Components:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Application │
│ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │ SDK │ │ Tracer │ │ Meter │ │
│ │ │ │ Provider │ │ Provider │ │
│ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
│ │ │
└───────────────┼───────────────┘
▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│ OTLP Exporter │
└─────────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────────┐
│ Collector │
│ (Optional) │
└─────────────────────────┘
│
┌───────────────┼───────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐
│ Jaeger │ │ Zipkin │ │ Tempo │
└─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘Trace Context Propagation
HTTP Headers (W3C Trace Context):
traceparent: 00-{trace-id}-{span-id}-{flags}
tracestate: vendor1=value1,vendor2=value2
Example:
traceparent: 00-0af7651916cd43dd8448eb211c80319c-b7ad6b7169203331-01
│ │ │ └─ sampled
│ │ └─ parent span id
│ └─ trace id (128-bit)
└─ version
Propagation across services:
┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐
│ Service A │ ─── HTTP ──────────►│ Service B │
│ │ traceparent: 00-... │ │
│ Create Span │ │ Extract │
│ Inject │ │ Create Span │
└─────────────┘ └─────────────┘Span Attributes
Semantic conventions (standard attributes):
HTTP:
- http.method: GET, POST, etc.
- http.url: Full URL
- http.status_code: 200, 404, 500
- http.route: /users/{id}
Database:
- db.system: postgresql, mysql
- db.statement: SELECT * FROM...
- db.operation: query, insert
RPC:
- rpc.system: grpc
- rpc.service: OrderService
- rpc.method: CreateOrder
Custom:
- user.id: 12345
- order.total: 99.99
- feature.flag: experiment_v2Tracing Backends
Jaeger
Features:
- Open source (CNCF)
- Built-in UI
- Multiple storage backends
- OpenTelemetry native
Architecture:
┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐
│ Agent │─►│ Collector │─►│ Storage │
│ (optional) │ │ │ │ (Cassandra/ │
└─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │ Elasticsearch)
│ └─────────────┘
▼
┌─────────────┐
│ Query │
│ Service │
└─────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────┐
│ UI │
└─────────────┘Zipkin
Features:
- Mature, battle-tested
- Simple architecture
- Low resource overhead
- Good ecosystem support
Best for:
- Simpler setups
- Lower resource environments
- Teams familiar with ZipkinGrafana Tempo
Features:
- Object storage backend (cheap)
- Deep Grafana integration
- Log-based trace discovery
- Exemplars support
Best for:
- Grafana-heavy environments
- Cost-sensitive deployments
- Large-scale tracesCloud Native Options
| Provider | Service | Integration |
|---|---|---|
| AWS | X-Ray | Native AWS services |
| GCP | Cloud Trace | Native GCP services |
| Azure | Application Insights | Native Azure services |
| Datadog | APM | Full-stack observability |
Sampling Strategies
Why Sample?
High-traffic systems generate millions of spans.
Storing all spans is expensive and often unnecessary.
Sampling: Collect a subset of traces
Goal: Keep enough data to debug issues
while managing costsSampling Types
1. Head-based sampling (at trace start):
- Decision made when trace begins
- Consistent across services
- Simple but may miss rare events
2. Tail-based sampling (after trace complete):
- Decision made after seeing full trace
- Can keep interesting traces (errors, slow)
- Requires buffering spans
- More complex infrastructure
3. Priority sampling:
- Assign priority based on attributes
- Keep all errors, sample normal trafficSampling Strategies
Rate-based:
- Sample 10% of all traces
- Simple, predictable cost
Priority-based:
- 100% of errors
- 100% of slow requests (>1s)
- 5% of normal requests
Adaptive:
- Adjust rate based on traffic
- Target specific traces/second
- Handle traffic spikesCorrelation Patterns
Logs-Traces-Metrics
Three Pillars of Observability:
Logs ◄──────────► Traces ◄──────────► Metrics
│ │ │
│ trace_id │ exemplars │
│ span_id │ │
└──────────────────┴───────────────────┘
Correlation:
1. Add trace_id/span_id to log entries
2. Add exemplars (trace links) to metrics
3. Click from metric → trace → logsLog Correlation
Structured log with trace context:
{
"timestamp": "2024-01-15T10:30:00Z",
"level": "ERROR",
"message": "Payment failed",
"trace_id": "abc123def456",
"span_id": "789xyz",
"service": "payment-service",
"user_id": "12345",
"error": "Card declined"
}
Query in log aggregator:
trace_id:"abc123def456"
→ See all logs for this requestExemplars (Metrics to Traces)
Metric with exemplar:
http_request_duration{service="api"} = 2.5s
└── exemplar: trace_id=abc123
When latency spikes:
1. See metric spike in dashboard
2. Click on data point
3. Jump directly to slow trace
4. See exactly what caused latencyInstrumentation Patterns
Automatic Instrumentation
Zero-code instrumentation:
- HTTP clients/servers
- Database clients
- Message queues
- gRPC
Pros: Easy, comprehensive
Cons: Less control, more noiseManual Instrumentation
Add spans for business logic:
with tracer.start_span("process_order") as span:
span.set_attribute("order.id", order_id)
span.set_attribute("order.items", len(items))
result = process(order)
if result.error:
span.set_status(Status(StatusCode.ERROR))
span.record_exception(result.error)
Pros: Precise, business-relevant
Cons: More code, maintenanceHybrid Approach (Recommended)
1. Auto-instrument infrastructure:
- HTTP, database, queue calls
2. Manual instrument business logic:
- Key operations
- Business metrics
- Error contextBest Practices
Span Design
Good span names:
- HTTP GET /api/orders/{id}
- ProcessPayment
- db.query users
Bad span names:
- Handler (too generic)
- /api/orders/12345 (cardinality explosion)
- doStuff (meaningless)Attribute Guidelines
Do:
- Use semantic conventions
- Add business context (user_id, order_id)
- Keep cardinality low
- Include error details
Don't:
- Add PII (personally identifiable info)
- Use high-cardinality values as attributes
- Add large payloads
- Include sensitive dataPerformance Considerations
1. Use async span export
2. Sample appropriately
3. Limit attribute count
4. Use span processor batching
5. Consider span limitsTroubleshooting with Traces
Common Patterns
Finding slow requests:
1. Query traces by duration > threshold
2. Identify slow spans
3. Check span attributes for context
Finding errors:
1. Query traces by status = ERROR
2. See error span and context
3. Check exception details
Finding dependencies:
1. View service map from traces
2. Identify critical paths
3. Find hidden dependenciesRelated Skills
observability-patterns- Three pillars overviewslo-sli-error-budget- Using traces for SLIsincident-response- Using traces in incidents