Did you get to talk with anyone in the LogWG ( https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LogWorkingGroup )? In wonder what kind of recommendations, standards we can come up with while adopting a cross project solution. If our logs follow certain prefix and or suffix style across projects, that would help a long way.
Personally: +1 on Solution 1 On 5/28/15 2:14 AM, Kekane, Abhishek wrote: > > Hi Devs, > > > > Thank you for your opinions/thoughts. > > However I would like to suggest that please give +1 against the > solution which you will like to propose so that at the end it will be > helpful for us to consolidate the voting against each solution and > make some decision. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Abhishek Kekane > > > > > > *From:*Joe Gordon [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 28 May 2015 00:31 > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [all] cross project communication: > Return request-id to caller > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Kekane, Abhishek > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Devs, > > > > Each OpenStack service sends a request ID header with HTTP responses. > This request ID can be useful for tracking down problems in the logs. > However, when operation crosses service boundaries, this tracking can > become difficult, as each service has its own request ID. Request ID > is not returned to the caller, so it is not easy to track the request. > This becomes especially problematic when requests are coming in > parallel. For example, glance will call cinder for creating image, but > that cinder instance may be handling several other requests at the > same time. By using same request ID in the log, user can easily find > the cinder request ID that is same as glance request ID in the g-api > log. It will help operators/developers to analyse logs effectively. > > > > Thank you for writing this up. > > > > > > To address this issue we have come up with following solutions: > > > > Solution 1: Return tuple containing headers and body from > respective clients (also favoured by Joe Gordon) > > Reference: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/156508/6/specs/log-request-id-mappings.rst > > > > Pros: > > 1. Maintains backward compatibility > > 2. Effective debugging/analysing of the problem as both calling > service request-id and called service request-id are logged in > same log message > > 3. Build a full call graph > > 4. End user will able to know the request-id of the request and > can approach service provider to know the cause of failure of > particular request. > > > > Cons: > > 1. The changes need to be done first in cross-projects before > making changes in clients > > 2. Applications which are using python-*clients needs to do > required changes (check return type of response) > > > > Additional cons: > > > > 3. Cannot simply search all logs (ala logstash) using the request-id > returned to the user without any post processing of the logs. > > > > > > > > Solution 2: Use thread local storage to store > 'x-openstack-request-id' returned from headers (suggested by Doug > Hellmann) > > Reference: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/156508/9/specs/log-request-id-mappings.rst > > > > Add new method ‘get_openstack_request_id’ to return this > request-id to the caller. > > > > Pros: > > 1. Doesn’t break compatibility > > 2. Minimal changes are required in client > > 3. Build a full call graph > > > > Cons: > > 1. Malicious user can send long request-id to fill up the > disk-space, resulting in potential DoS > > 2. Changes need to be done in all python-*clients > > 3. Last request id should be flushed out in a subsequent call > otherwise it will return wrong request id to the caller > > > > > > Solution 3: Unique request-id across OpenStack Services (suggested > by Jamie Lennox) > > Reference: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/156508/10/specs/log-request-id-mappings.rst > > > > Get 'x-openstack-request-id' from auth plugin and add it to the > request headers. If 'x-openstack-request-id' key is present in the > request header, then it will use the same one further or else it > will generate a new one. > > > > Dependencies: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164582/ - Include request-id in > auth plugin and add it to request headers > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/166063/ - Add session-object for > glance client > > Add 'UserAuthPlugin' and '_ContextAuthPlugin' same as nova in > cinder and neutron > > > > > > Pros: > > 1. Using same request id for the request crossing multiple service > boundaries will help operators/developers identify the problem quickly > > 2. Required changes only in keystonemiddleware and oslo_middleware > libraries. No changes are required in the python client bindings > or OpenStack core services > > > > Cons: > > 1. As 'x-openstack-request-id' in the request header will be > visible to the user, it is possible to send same request id for > multiple requests which in turn could create more problems in case > of troubleshooting cause of the failure as request_id middleware > will not check for its uniqueness in the scope of the running > OpenStack service. > > 2. Having the same request ID for all services for a single user > API call means you cannot generate a full call graph. For example > if a single user's nova API call produces 2 calls to glance you > want to be able to differentiate the two different calls. > > > > > > During the Liberty design summit, I had a chance of discussing > these designs with some of the core members like Doug, Joe Gordon, > Jamie Lennox etc. But not able to came to any conclusion on the > final design and know the communities direction by which way they > want to use this request-id effectively. > > > > However IMO, solution 1 sounds more useful as the debugger can > able to build the full call graph which can be helpful for > analysing gate failures effectively as well as end user will be > able to know his request-id and can track his request. > > > > I request all community members to go through these solutions and > let us know which is the appropriate way to improve the logs by > logging request-id. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > Abhishek Kekane > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Disclaimer: This email and any attachments are sent in strictest > confidence > for the sole use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged, > confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended > recipient, > please advise the sender by replying promptly to this email and > then delete > and destroy this email and any attachments without any further > use, copying > or forwarding. > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: > [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > <http://[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Disclaimer: This email and any attachments are sent in strictest > confidence > for the sole use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged, > confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended recipient, > please advise the sender by replying promptly to this email and then > delete > and destroy this email and any attachments without any further use, > copying > or forwarding. > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Thanks, Nikhil __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
