You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The sampling alorithm for TraceIdRatioBasedSampler is unspecified. As a result, trace IDs that are sampled by some implementations might get non-sampled or re-sampled by SDKs in other languages, even though they have the same or a a higher probability than the parent.
TODO list for this issue:
Is this a problem at all? Or is the ParentBased approach enough (in combination with any, not necessarily trace-id-based probability-based sampling of root spans)?
If it is a problem, since trace IDs can come from untrusted, non-random sources, do we open up a DDoS/Security/performance issue when using trace IDs as sole, deterministic input for our sampling algorithm? Do we need to put a warning there? Let's assume it is no problem for this issue, this should be handled in Support restarting the trace with a different trace ID #1188.
If applicable after checking the above we determine that we need a consistent algorithm, actually do specify it (maybe based on Add probability sampler details #331).
See also discussion on #1412 (comment)
The sampling alorithm for TraceIdRatioBasedSampler is unspecified. As a result, trace IDs that are sampled by some implementations might get non-sampled or re-sampled by SDKs in other languages, even though they have the same or a a higher probability than the parent.
TODO list for this issue:
If it is a problem, since trace IDs can come from untrusted, non-random sources, do we open up a DDoS/Security/performance issue when using trace IDs as sole, deterministic input for our sampling algorithm? Do we need to put a warning there?Let's assume it is no problem for this issue, this should be handled in Support restarting the trace with a different trace ID #1188.