---

Quick Definition

Jaeger is an open-source distributed tracing system used to monitor, troubleshoot, and optimize complex microservices and distributed applications.

Analogy: Jaeger is like highways’ CCTV combined with toll logs — it shows where traffic flowed, how long each segment took, and where jams or reroutes occurred.

Formal technical line: Jaeger collects, stores, and queries trace spans, providing end-to-end latency analysis, root-cause identification, and service dependency visualization for distributed systems.

If Jaeger has multiple meanings:

• Most common: Distributed tracing system in cloud-native observability.
• Other meanings:
• A surname.
• A beverage name in casual contexts.
• Historical/brand references in unrelated domains.

---

What is Jaeger?

What it is:

• Jaeger is a telemetry backend for distributed tracing that ingests spans from instrumented services, stores them, and provides query and visualization for traces.
• It implements trace collection, sampling strategies, storage backends, and UI-based diagnostics.

What it is NOT:

• Jaeger is not a full APM suite with deep code-level profiling by default.
• Jaeger is not a metrics engine or log store, although it integrates with both.
• Jaeger is not a replacement for centralized security logs or SIEMs.

Key properties and constraints:

• Open-source and vendor-neutral.
• Integrates with OpenTelemetry and OpenTracing instrumentations.
• Supports multiple storage backends (Elasticsearch, Cassandra, and more), with trade-offs in cost and latency.
• Sampling and retention are configurable; high-cardinality traces increase cost and storage needs.
• Real-time query performance depends on storage index strategy and cluster sizing.
• Security depends on deployment: transport encryption, RBAC, and data lifecycle must be configured.

Where it fits in modern cloud/SRE workflows:

• Root-cause analysis for latency and failure cascades.
• Dependency mapping and service topology for architectural insights.
• Complement to metrics and logs; often used in SRE incident playbooks.
• In CI/CD, used for release verification and performance regression testing.
• Used in chaos engineering and game days to validate observability.

Diagram description (text-only):

• Instrumented services emit spans to a local agent or collector.
• The collector batches and forwards spans to a storage backend.
• Storage holds traces and indexes fields for query.
• UI and APIs query storage to render traces and service dependencies.
• Alerting or automation hooks can trigger from trace-derived metrics or sampling events.

Jaeger in one sentence

Jaeger is an open-source distributed tracing system that captures and visualizes request flows across microservices to speed up troubleshooting and performance tuning.

Jaeger vs related terms (TABLE REQUIRED)

ID	Term	How it differs from Jaeger	Common confusion
T1	OpenTelemetry	SDK/spec for instrumentation not a storage/query backend	People think it stores traces
T2	Zipkin	Another tracer collector with different defaults and storage choices	Often compared as alternative backend
T3	Prometheus	Metrics time series system not trace-based	Confusion over metric vs trace use
T4	ELK	Log processing and search platform not primarily for traces	Some assume logs replace traces
T5	APM vendor	Commercial products add profiling and UX features	Assumed to be same as Jaeger UI
T6	Distributed tracing	General concept; Jaeger is an implementation	People use terms interchangeably

Row Details (only if any cell says “See details below”)

---

Why does Jaeger matter?

Business impact:

• Revenue protection: Faster root-cause means reduced downtime for revenue-affecting services.
• Customer trust: Shorter incident duration leads to fewer user-visible errors and less churn.
• Risk reduction: Traceability helps detect cascading failures before they affect SLAs.

Engineering impact:

• Incident reduction and faster MTTR: Engineers locate problematic services and code paths faster.
• Velocity: Developers can validate performance of new releases and avoid regressions.
• Reduced cognitive load: Visual traces provide context that metrics alone cannot.

SRE framing:

• SLIs/SLOs: Traces inform latency SLIs and error classification.
• Error budgets: Tracing helps identify systemic sources of errors consuming the budget.
• Toil reduction: Automated trace retention and sampling policies reduce manual work.
• On-call: Traces speed diagnostics, reducing escalation and noisy alerts.

What commonly breaks in production (realistic examples):

1. Intermittent latency spike in a payment checkout flow — root cause often a downstream database timeout.
2. Traffic routing causes calls to an outdated service version — manifests as increased error rates in specific endpoints.
3. High-cardinality tags push storage indexes over capacity — queries become slow or fail.
4. Misconfigured sampling yields insufficient traces for incident diagnosis.
5. Network partition causes delayed spans arriving out of order, complicating trace reconstruction.

---

Where is Jaeger used? (TABLE REQUIRED)

ID	Layer/Area	How Jaeger appears	Typical telemetry	Common tools
L1	Edge and API gateway	Traces for request ingress and routing	HTTP spans, latency	API gateway, ingress controller
L2	Service mesh	Latency between sidecars and services	RPC spans, mesh headers	Service mesh proxy
L3	Application services	End-to-end application traces	Span events, tags	OpenTelemetry SDKs
L4	Datastore layer	DB call spans and timings	DB queries, errors	DB drivers, collectors
L5	Batch and data pipelines	Long-running job traces and retries	Job spans, downstream calls	Batch schedulers
L6	Kubernetes platform	Traces for pod-to-pod calls and controllers	Pod labels in spans	K8s API, operators
L7	Serverless / managed PaaS	Traces for function invocations	Invocation spans, cold start	Function frameworks
L8	CI/CD and release validation	Traces for deployment verification	Request latency changes	CI runners, canary tools
L9	Incident response	Traces used in postmortems and RCA	Error traces and timelines	Alerting, postmortem tools

Row Details (only if needed)

• L5: Batch systems often emit aggregated spans covering many tasks; sampling must be adjusted.
• L7: Serverless platforms may require vendor-specific instrumentation layers.

---

When should you use Jaeger?

When it’s necessary:

• You operate a distributed system with multiple services and remote procedure calls.
• You need end-to-end latency visibility and root-cause analysis across services.
• Incidents frequently span multiple services or layers.

When it’s optional:

• Single-process monoliths with limited external calls and low concurrency.
• Systems where logging and metrics already provide sufficient diagnostics for the team’s needs.

When NOT to use / overuse it:

• Tracing every request at full detail in a high-throughput environment without sampling can be prohibitively expensive.
• Trying to replace metrics or logs entirely with traces.
• Using tracing as only a compliance artifact without real analysis practices.

Decision checklist:

• If you have microservices + observable latency problems -> Use Jaeger.
• If you have a small monolith + stable performance -> Tracing optional.
• If cost constraints and high throughput -> Use sampling + selective instrumentation.
• If needing deep code profiling -> Consider supplementing with APM.

Maturity ladder:

• Beginner:
• Install agent/collector with basic SDK instrumentation.
• Low sampling, trace key endpoints only.
• Intermediate:
• Full OpenTelemetry instrumentation.
• Configure storage, indexing, and retention.
• Add dashboards and basic alerts on trace-derived metrics.
• Advanced:
• Dynamic sampling and tail-based sampling.
• Integrated release verification, automated alert-to-trace linking.
• Cost-aware storage lifecycle and RBAC/security policies.

Example decision for a small team:

• Small e-commerce with 10 services: Start with tracing payment and checkout flows, set 5% sampling, use a low-cost storage backend, add an on-call runbook.

Example decision for a large enterprise:

• Global microservices with high throughput: Deploy distributed collectors, use scalable storage (Cassandra/Bigtable variant), enable adaptive sampling, integrate with incident management and cost dashboards.

---

How does Jaeger work?

Components and workflow:

• Instrumentation: Services add spans using OpenTelemetry/OpenTracing client libraries.
• Agent: Local daemon that receives spans over UDP/HTTP and forwards to collector.
• Collector: Receives spans, processes them, and writes to a storage backend.
• Storage: Persistent backend that indexes span fields for queries.
• Query API/UI: Reads stored traces and serves UI/REST queries.
• Optional: Ingestion pipeline for enrichment, sampling, and forwarding.

Data flow and lifecycle:

1. A request enters service A; a root span is started.
2. Service A calls service B and creates a child span with context headers.
3. Each service records spans and events, then sends them to the agent.
4. Agent batches and forwards spans to the collector.
5. Collector writes spans to storage and updates indexes.
6. UI queries storage to reconstruct traces for display.

Edge cases and failure modes:

• Out-of-order spans due to clocks or buffering.
• Dropped spans when network/agent overload occurs.
• Latency in storage indexing affects query freshness.
• High-cardinality tags causing index bloat.
• Loss of parent span context leading to fragmented traces.

Short practical examples (pseudocode):

• Instrumentation pattern:
• Start root span at request ingress.
• Propagate span context using headers across RPC calls.
• Record events for errors and significant checkpoints.
• Sampling:
• Use probabilistic sampling for high-volume endpoints.
• Tail-based sampling to keep error traces while reducing noise.

Typical architecture patterns for Jaeger

1. All-in-one development pattern: – Single binary combining agent, collector, storage for local testing. – Use when developing locally or for small demos.

2. Agent-per-host edge pattern: – Lightweight agent runs on each host/pod to collect spans and forward to central collectors. – Use for multi-host clusters to reduce cross-host traffic.

3. Distributed collector + scalable storage: – Multiple collectors behind load balancing, storage in Cassandra or scalable cloud DB. – Use for high-throughput production workloads.

4. Sidecar/service mesh integration: – Tracing through sidecar proxies that inject and capture spans without changing app code. – Use when running service mesh to minimize app changes.

5. Managed backend with local sampling: – Local sampling and aggregation, then push to managed tracing offering. – Use to offload storage and maintenance while controlling data sent.

6. Hybrid retention and cold storage pattern: – Hot storage for recent traces, archived batch to cheaper object storage for compliance. – Use when retention policies and cost optimization are needed.

Failure modes & mitigation (TABLE REQUIRED)

ID	Failure mode	Symptom	Likely cause	Mitigation	Observability signal
F1	Missing traces	No traces for requests	Instrumentation not deployed	Deploy SDKs and verify headers	Zero trace volume
F2	Slow queries	Trace UI queries time out	Storage index overload	Reindex or add nodes	High query latency
F3	High storage cost	Unexpected bill increased	High sampling and high-card tags	Reduce sampling and tag cardinality	Rising storage usage
F4	Fragmented traces	Many partial traces	Lost context propagation	Fix header propagation	Many short traces
F5	Collector overload	Spans dropped at collector	Network spikes or bursts	Autoscale collectors	Drop counters on collector
F6	Clock skew	Spans timestamp mismatch	Unsynced clocks	NTP/Ptp sync	Inconsistent span order
F7	Index corruption	Search errors	Storage hardware or mapping change	Restore from backup	Index error logs

Row Details (only if needed)

• F1: Verify SDK initialization, sampling config, and that spans are exported to agent endpoint.
• F2: Check storage cluster CPU and I/O, review index patterns and time-based indices.
• F3: Audit tag usage and sampling rates; implement cardinality limits and TTL.
• F4: Ensure tracing headers are forwarded in HTTP clients and gRPC interceptors.
• F5: Monitor collector CPU, queue lengths, and configure backpressure or buffering.
• F6: Synchronize host clocks using NTP and monitor skew metrics.
• F7: Run storage diagnostics and index repair procedures; ensure consistent mappings.

---

Key Concepts, Keywords & Terminology for Jaeger

• Trace — A collection of spans representing a transaction flow across services — shows end-to-end latency — pitfall: assuming one trace always equals one user request.
• Span — Single operation within a trace with start/end timestamps — basic unit of trace — pitfall: missing end timestamp causes open spans.
• SpanContext — Propagation information (trace id, span id, flags) — enables correlation across services — pitfall: header omission breaks causality.
• Trace ID — Unique identifier for a trace — used to fetch full trace — pitfall: non-unique generation in custom libs.
• Parent span — Immediate predecessor span — identifies causal relation — pitfall: incorrectly setting parent leads to fragmentation.
• Child span — Span started by another span — shows nested work — pitfall: misordered start times.
• Sampling — Policy to reduce number of traces collected — controls cost — pitfall: too aggressive sampling loses incident traces.
• Probabilistic sampling — Sample a percentage of traces — simple and low overhead — pitfall: misses rare error traces.
• Tail-based sampling — Decide after seeing complete trace whether to keep it — retains error traces — pitfall: needs buffering and more compute.
• Agent — Local collector daemon on host — batches and forwards spans — pitfall: single-agent failure drops local data.
• Collector — Central component ingesting spans — processes and writes to storage — pitfall: low capacity leads to drop.
• Storage backend — Persistence layer (Cassandra, Elasticsearch, etc.) — indexes fields for query — pitfall: index explosion from high-card tags.
• Indexing — Creating searchable fields from spans — enables query — pitfall: too many indexed fields degrade performance.
• UI — User interface for trace search and visualization — primary troubleshooting surface — pitfall: stale UI from slow indexing.
• Query service — API that retrieves traces for UI — mediates user queries — pitfall: inefficient queries cause latency.
• Tags — Key-value metadata attached to spans — used for filtering and context — pitfall: high cardinality tags.
• Logs/events — Time-stamped annotations inside spans — useful for debugging — pitfall: noisy logging increases storage.
• Baggage — Data propagated across services with spans — persists across process boundaries — pitfall: can cause explosion of transmitted data.
• Context propagation — Passing span context across process boundaries — critical for trace continuity — pitfall: missing middleware hooks.
• OpenTelemetry — Instrumentation standard and SDKs — modern preferred instrumentation — pitfall: partial adoption across ecosystem.
• OpenTracing — Earlier tracing API compatible with Jaeger — historical relevance — pitfall: overlapping usage with OpenTelemetry.
• gRPC interceptor — Middleware to auto-instrument gRPC calls — simplifies propagation — pitfall: forgetting to install interceptors.
• HTTP middleware — Auto-instrumentation layer for HTTP frameworks — reduces manual code — pitfall: incompatible middleware ordering.
• Service dependency graph — Visual map of service interactions derived from traces — shows topology — pitfall: outdated graph due to sampling.
• Latency distribution — Breakdown of response times per span or endpoint — identifies tail latencies — pitfall: mean-only metrics miss outliers.
• Error span — Span that records an error condition — helps prioritize troubleshooting — pitfall: inconsistent error tagging.
• Root cause analysis — Process to find primary cause of incident using traces — reduces MTTR — pitfall: focusing on symptomatic spans only.
• Correlation IDs — IDs used to link logs, metrics, and traces — enables cross-signal debugging — pitfall: mismatched naming across teams.
• Tail latency — High percentile latency like p95/p99 — critical for UX — pitfall: tracking only p50 hides issues.
• High-cardinality — Large number of distinct label values — causes index and query problems — pitfall: tagging user IDs or request IDs as tags.
• Low-cardinality — Few distinct tag values — safe for indexing — pitfall: too coarse to debug specific cases.
• Sampling rate — Percentage or rule set used to keep traces — balances cost vs fidelity — pitfall: dynamic workloads require adaptive rates.
• Retention policy — How long traces are kept — impacts cost and compliance — pitfall: keeping everything indefinitely without need.
• Cold storage — Cheap long-term storage for archived traces — allows compliance without query performance — pitfall: slow retrieval times.
• Hot storage — Fast storage for recent traces — used for active debugging — pitfall: expensive if retention window is large.
• Span enrichment — Adding metadata at ingestion time — improves searchability — pitfall: enrichment increases storage.
• Head-based sampling — Sample decision at span start — low latency — pitfall: misses errors correlated later.
• Queueing/backpressure — Controls to handle bursts between agent and collector — prevents drop — pitfall: improper sizing causes bottlenecks.
• RBAC — Role-based access control for UI and APIs — secures trace access — pitfall: overly broad access exposes sensitive data.
• PII redaction — Removing sensitive data from spans — compliance requirement — pitfall: accidentally storing user data in tags.
• Observability pipeline — Flow from instrumentation to storage and analysis — Jaeger is a major part — pitfall: missing link between logs and traces.
• Canary tracing — Tracing canary releases to detect regressions — helps safe deploys — pitfall: canary traffic sampling must align with tracing.
• Trace ingestion rate — Spans per second entering the system — sizing metric — pitfall: unexpected spikes require autoscaling.
• Composite trace — Trace that spans distributed batch jobs and async work — can be long-lived — pitfall: buffer retention must accommodate.

---

How to Measure Jaeger (Metrics, SLIs, SLOs) (TABLE REQUIRED)

ID	Metric/SLI	What it tells you	How to measure	Starting target	Gotchas
M1	Trace ingestion rate	Volume of spans ingested	Collector metrics spans/sec	Varies by app See details below: M1	High burst risk
M2	Trace query latency	UI/query responsiveness	Query service p50/p95	p95 < 2s	Depends on storage
M3	Trace sampling coverage	Percentage of requests traced	Instrumentation sampling rate	1%–10% typical	Too low loses errors
M4	Error trace retention	How long error traces kept	Count of error traces by TTL	Retain error traces longer	Storage cost tradeoff
M5	Span drop rate	Spans dropped at any stage	Collector/agent drop counters	Keep under 0.1%	Network spikes inflate
M6	Trace reconstruction rate	Fraction of full traces reconstructed	Compare root traces vs fragments	>95%	Missing propagation lowers rate
M7	Storage growth rate	Cost and capacity trend	Daily storage delta	Baseline per service	High-card tags increase growth
M8	Indexing lag	Time between ingest and searchable	Time difference metric	<1m for hot data	Heavy indexing delays
M9	Tail traces per error	Traces that capture error tail	Count errors with complete traces	Keep high for errors	Tail sampling needed
M10	UI error rate	Failures in query/UI	HTTP 5xx from query service	<0.1%	Misconfigs cause spikes

Row Details (only if needed)

• M1: Collector exposes spans_in/sec and processed spans; configure export to metrics system.
• M3: Start with 1% for high-throughput endpoints and 10% for critical flows; use targeted tracing for rare errors.
• M5: Monitor agent queue overflow and collector drop counters; add autoscaling and buffering.
• M8: Track indexing queue length on storage backend and latency to index new docs.

Best tools to measure Jaeger

Tool — Prometheus

• What it measures for Jaeger: Collector and agent metrics, ingestion rates, queue lengths.
• Best-fit environment: Kubernetes and cloud-native clusters.
• Setup outline:
• Scrape Jaeger collector and agent endpoints.
• Instrumenters expose metrics via Prometheus exporters.
• Create recording rules for span rates and drop counts.
• Strengths:
• Widely used and integrates with alerting.
• Efficient time series storage for metrics.
• Limitations:
• Not designed for trace storage.
• Needs retention planning.

Tool — Grafana

• What it measures for Jaeger: Dashboards combining trace-derived metrics and infrastructure metrics.
• Best-fit environment: Teams needing unified dashboards.
• Setup outline:
• Connect Prometheus and Jaeger as data sources.
• Build panels for trace volume, query latency, and errors.
• Strengths:
• Flexible visualizations.
• Alerting integration.
• Limitations:
• Requires dashboard design and maintenance.

Tool — Loki (or centralized logging)

• What it measures for Jaeger: Correlates logs with trace IDs for deeper analysis.
• Best-fit environment: Teams using logs+traces correlation.
• Setup outline:
• Ensure logs contain trace IDs.
• Link log queries to traces in UI.
• Strengths:
• Improves debugging context.
• Limitations:
• Log volume and retention trade-offs.

Tool — Cost monitoring tools (cloud billing)

• What it measures for Jaeger: Storage and ingress cost from trace retention and storage backend usage.
• Best-fit environment: Cloud-managed storage usage tracking.
• Setup outline:
• Tag resources with Jaeger usage.
• Monitor daily/weekly trends.
• Strengths:
• Helps budget trace retention.
• Limitations:
• May not link directly to trace-level cost.

Tool — Synthetic trace generators

• What it measures for Jaeger: End-to-end tracing coverage and pipeline latency under load.
• Best-fit environment: Pre-prod and canary environments.
• Setup outline:
• Generate synthetic requests with trace headers.
• Validate trace ingestion and query.
• Strengths:
• Validates pipeline before production.
• Limitations:
• Synthetic traffic differs from real traffic patterns.

Recommended dashboards & alerts for Jaeger

Executive dashboard:

• Panels:
• Total trace volume trend and cost estimate.
• SLA-relevant p95 latency for critical user journeys.
• Error trace rate trend.
• Storage usage and projection.
• Why: Provides leadership view on health, cost, and SLA risks.

On-call dashboard:

• Panels:
• Recent error traces list with direct links.
• Trace query latency and failed UI requests.
• Collector and agent queue lengths and drop rates.
• Top services by p99 latency.
• Why: Quickly triage incidents and link alerts to traces.

Debug dashboard:

• Panels:
• Per-endpoint trace volume and failure counts.
• Span duration distribution histograms.
• Trace reconstruction percentage and sampling coverage.
• Recent traces with annotations and logs.
• Why: For deep root-cause analysis.

Alerting guidance:

• What should page vs ticket:
• Page: High span drop rate, collector down, severe p99 latency over threshold on production critical paths.
• Ticket: Gradual storage growth crossing forecast, moderate increase in tail latency under 24–48 hours.
• Burn-rate guidance:
• Use error SLO burn rates for tracing-derived SLIs; page on high burn rate within short windows.
• Noise reduction tactics:
• Deduplicate alerts by service and error signature.
• Group by trace root cause when possible.
• Suppression windows for known maintenance.

---

Implementation Guide (Step-by-step)

1) Prerequisites – Inventory critical services and user journeys. – Decide storage backend and sizing. – Establish sampling and retention policy. – Ensure authentication and network paths for agents and collectors.

2) Instrumentation plan – Prioritize endpoints: authentication, payments, checkout, core APIs. – Choose OpenTelemetry SDKs for language coverage. – Define standard tags and error conventions. – Plan for header propagation across protocols.

3) Data collection – Deploy agent per host/pod and collectors as a scalable service. – Configure exporters for chosen storage. – Implement local buffering and backpressure. – Enable enrichment at collector if needed.

4) SLO design – Identify critical flows and set SLIs (p95 latency, error rate). – Define SLO targets (e.g., p95 < 500ms for checkout) and error budgets. – Align sampling to ensure trace coverage for SLO-bound flows.

5) Dashboards – Build executive, on-call, and debug dashboards. – Include links from metrics to trace search for fast drill-down.

6) Alerts & routing – Create alerts for collector health, span drops, query latency, and SLO burn rate. – Route page alerts to SRE rotations; route lower-severity tickets to dev teams.

7) Runbooks & automation – Create runbooks for common failures: collector down, missing spans, high drop rates. – Automate remediation where possible: restart agents, autoscale collectors, adjust sampling.

8) Validation (load/chaos/game days) – Load test to validate pipeline under realistic span rates. – Run chaos exercises that break downstream services and validate trace capture. – Game days to practice incident playbooks using traces.

9) Continuous improvement – Review postmortems for trace gaps. – Iterate on sampling and tags. – Automate retention and cold-archive policies.

Checklists:

Pre-production checklist:

• Instrument critical endpoints using OpenTelemetry.
• Deploy agent and collector in dev cluster.
• Verify trace ingestion and query for synthetic flows.
• Configure metrics scraping for Jaeger components.

Production readiness checklist:

• Validate sampling coverage for critical flows.
• Ensure collectors scaled for peak spans/sec.
• Set RBAC for UI and APIs.
• Set retention and archival policies.

Incident checklist specific to Jaeger:

• Verify collector and agent health metrics.
• Check span drop counters and queue lengths.
• Confirm no recent deployment removed instrumentation.
• If traces missing, check header propagation and SDK initialization logs.

Examples:

• Kubernetes: Deploy jaeger-agent as DaemonSet, collectors as Deployment with HPA, use Service to expose query UI; verify pod labels are included in spans.
• Managed cloud service: Use OpenTelemetry SDKs exporting to vendor-managed tracing endpoint; configure sampling locally and validate ingestion with synthetic traffic.

What “good” looks like:

• Critical flows have >95% reconstructable traces for incidents.
• Query latency under operational thresholds.
• Storage growth aligned with forecasts and cost policies.

---

Use Cases of Jaeger

1. Slow checkout flow diagnosis – Context: Customers report slow checkout only intermittently. – Problem: Hard to replicate; metrics show occasional p99 spikes. – Why Jaeger helps: Shows span-by-span timings across payment, inventory, and auth services. – What to measure: p99 end-to-end time, DB call durations, downstream service latencies. – Typical tools: OpenTelemetry, Jaeger UI, Prometheus.

2. Identifying cascading failures – Context: One microservice experiencing errors triggers other failures. – Problem: Error cascading not visible in metrics alone. – Why Jaeger helps: Shows sequence of failing calls and timings. – What to measure: Error traces count, service dependency graph. – Typical tools: Jaeger, dependency visualization.

3. Release performance validation – Context: New deploy suspected to increase latency. – Problem: Hard to correlate deployment to specific latency changes. – Why Jaeger helps: Compare traces pre and post-deploy for target endpoints. – What to measure: p95/p99 pre/post release, success rate of traced requests. – Typical tools: Canary releases, tracing, synthetic tests.

4. Debugging serverless cold starts – Context: Function cold starts cause latency spikes. – Problem: Aggregated metrics miss which requests had cold starts. – Why Jaeger helps: Traces mark cold start spans and timings. – What to measure: Cold start latency distribution, invocation traces. – Typical tools: OpenTelemetry for serverless, Jaeger.

5. Database query optimization – Context: DB queries cause long tail latencies. – Problem: Metrics show high DB time but not which queries. – Why Jaeger helps: Captures DB span details and query durations. – What to measure: Top slow queries by trace volume. – Typical tools: DB client instrumentation, Jaeger.

6. Multi-region performance troubleshooting – Context: Requests routed to different regions have different latencies. – Problem: Complex routing logic and caches obscure root cause. – Why Jaeger helps: Trace metadata includes region tags for comparison. – What to measure: Regional p99 and service call times. – Typical tools: Service mesh, Jaeger, cloud routing logs.

7. Debugging async job performance – Context: Background job processing has variable runtimes. – Problem: Hard to correlate request to job completion. – Why Jaeger helps: Traces span from request to async job invocation using baggage or correlation IDs. – What to measure: Job queue wait time, processing time. – Typical tools: Message broker instrumentation, Jaeger.

8. Security incident investigation – Context: Unusual API usage pattern suspected of abuse. – Problem: Logs show many requests but no causal chain. – Why Jaeger helps: Trace flows reveal sequence and affected services. – What to measure: Trace paths for suspicious user IDs, error patterns. – Typical tools: Jaeger with PII redaction.

9. Cost optimization by tracing – Context: Storage and compute costs spike unexpectedly. – Problem: Tracing data volume may be a cost driver. – Why Jaeger helps: Pinpoints services emitting excessive spans or high-cardinality tags. – What to measure: Per-service spans/sec and tag cardinality. – Typical tools: Cost monitoring + Jaeger telemetry.

10. Integrating legacy systems – Context: Partial-legacy environment with new microservices. – Problem: Hard to see end-to-end across modern and legacy pieces. – Why Jaeger helps: Provides single trace across mixed tech stacks if propagated. – What to measure: Trace completeness and fragment rates. – Typical tools: Custom instrumentation adapters, Jaeger.

---

Scenario Examples (Realistic, End-to-End)

Scenario #1 — Kubernetes: Latency spike on payments service

Context: Production K8s cluster; intermittent p99 latency spikes on payments API.
Goal: Identify root cause and implement fix.
Why Jaeger matters here: Payments span multiple services and DB calls; traces reveal where time is spent.
Architecture / workflow: Instrument all payment microservices with OpenTelemetry SDK; agents as DaemonSets; collectors as a Deployment; storage in scalable backend.
Step-by-step implementation:

1. Instrument HTTP and DB clients with OpenTelemetry.
2. Deploy jaeger-agent as DaemonSet and collectors with HPA.
3. Configure 10% sampling for payments route, 1% for others.
4. Create debug dashboard linking p99 to trace search.
5. Run synthetic load to validate ingestion. What to measure: p99 latency per endpoint, DB span durations, remote call times.
   Tools to use and why: OpenTelemetry for instrumentation; Jaeger collector; Prometheus/Grafana for metrics.
   Common pitfalls: Missing header propagation across sidecars; high-card tags in payment spans.
   Validation: Trigger checkout flows and verify traces show DB and downstream service times; ensure trace reconstruction >95%.
   Outcome: Root cause identified as an inefficient DB query in the payments service; optimized query reduced p99 by 60%.

Scenario #2 — Serverless/managed-PaaS: Cold start analysis

Context: Managed function platform serving image processing; users report latency spikes.
Goal: Quantify cold start impact and reduce user-visible latency.
Why Jaeger matters here: Traces can show initialization spans and relate them to user requests.
Architecture / workflow: Instrument functions with OT SDK; export traces to managed collector endpoint; sampling set to 100% for debugging.
Step-by-step implementation:

1. Add tracing SDK to function runtime and include cold-start event logging as span event.
2. Configure collector endpoint in managed environment.
3. Generate load that alternates between idle and steady traffic to provoke cold starts.
4. Analyze traces for cold-start spans and durations. What to measure: Cold-start duration, frequency per deployment, affected user percentage.
   Tools to use and why: OpenTelemetry SDK for serverless, Jaeger backend or vendor-managed tracing.
   Common pitfalls: Environment restrictions preventing SDK use; trace headers not preserved in async invocations.
   Validation: Verify synthetic runs show expected cold-start traces and reduction after mitigations.
   Outcome: Implemented provisioned concurrency and optimized init code, reducing cold-start impact.

Scenario #3 — Incident response / postmortem: Cascading failure

Context: Incident where cache eviction led to DB overload and service outages across region.
Goal: Produce an RCA with precise timeline and corrective actions.
Why Jaeger matters here: Traces show the exact sequence from cache miss to DB timeouts across affected services.
Architecture / workflow: Traces captured across cache, service, and DB layers; link logs via trace ID.
Step-by-step implementation:

1. Pull traces for incident window and map dependency graph.
2. Identify common parent span indicating initial cache eviction event.
3. Correlate with autoscaling and DB metrics for capacity pressure.
4. Create timeline for RCA using trace timestamps. What to measure: Number of cache misses, DB latency growth, error traces count.
   Tools to use and why: Jaeger for trace visualization, logs linked via trace ID, metrics for capacity.
   Common pitfalls: Missing baggage for the cache layer or lost trace fragments.
   Validation: Reconstruct incident timeline and verify corrective actions reduce recurrence risk.
   Outcome: Remediation implemented with circuit breakers and cache protection rules.

Scenario #4 — Cost vs performance trade-off: High-cardinality tags

Context: Team adds user_id tag to all spans; storage costs spike.
Goal: Balance trace usefulness with storage cost.
Why Jaeger matters here: Traces expose tag cardinality and index load contributing to costs.
Architecture / workflow: Spans with user_id tag forwarded to collector; storage indexes tags by default.
Step-by-step implementation:

1. Measure tag cardinality and per-day storage.
2. Implement tag policy to restrict user_id to error traces only.
3. Use tail-based sampling to keep error traces with user_id.
4. Re-evaluate storage and query performance. What to measure: Storage reduction, trace completeness for errors, query latency.
   Tools to use and why: Jaeger for trace analysis, cost monitoring tools.
   Common pitfalls: Losing ability to debug user-specific issues after removing tag.
   Validation: Compare pre/post-change incident debug capability on a sample set.
   Outcome: Storage costs reduced while retaining user-specific debug capability for errors.

---

Common Mistakes, Anti-patterns, and Troubleshooting

List of mistakes with symptom -> root cause -> fix:

1. Symptom: No traces appear for a service -> Root cause: SDK not initialized or exporter misconfigured -> Fix: Verify SDK init code and exporter endpoint; test with synthetic spans.
2. Symptom: Many short fragmented traces -> Root cause: Context header not propagated -> Fix: Add HTTP/gRPC interceptors or middleware to forward headers.
3. Symptom: High storage bills -> Root cause: Excessive sampling and high-cardinality tags -> Fix: Reduce sampling, remove high-card tags, use tail sampling for errors.
4. Symptom: Slow trace queries -> Root cause: Storage indexing overloaded -> Fix: Scale storage nodes and optimize indices.
5. Symptom: Collector dropping spans -> Root cause: Collector CPU or queue saturation -> Fix: Autoscale collectors, increase queue size, or add buffering.
6. Symptom: Missing user context in traces -> Root cause: Putting PII in baggage that gets dropped -> Fix: Use non-PII correlation IDs and ensure baggage policies.
7. Symptom: UI shows stale traces -> Root cause: Indexing lag -> Fix: Monitor indexing pipeline and add resources.
8. Symptom: Trace counts fluctuate wildly -> Root cause: Sampling policy changes or deployment removing instrumentation -> Fix: Standardize sampling config and ensure CI checks.
9. Symptom: Alerts flooding on trace errors -> Root cause: Overly broad error detection from traces -> Fix: Refine alert thresholds and group by error signature.
10. Symptom: Cannot correlate logs to traces -> Root cause: Missing trace ID in logs -> Fix: Inject trace ID into log context in instrumentation.
11. Symptom: Sensitive data in traces -> Root cause: Tags/logs contain PII -> Fix: Implement PII redaction and field-level filtering.
12. Symptom: Trace search returns too many results -> Root cause: Overly broad indexed fields -> Fix: Limit indexed tags and use narrower queries.
13. Symptom: Long-lived traces not retained -> Root cause: Retention policy too short for long jobs -> Fix: Extend retention for job traces or archive selectively.
14. Symptom: Metrics disagree with traces -> Root cause: Different sampling or time windows -> Fix: Align sampling and ensure consistent time windows.
15. Symptom: High cardinality metrics from tracing tags -> Root cause: Using trace tags as metrics labels -> Fix: Aggregate or remove high-card tags before exporting metrics.
16. Symptom: Traces show impossible timing (negative durations) -> Root cause: Clock skew across hosts -> Fix: Enforce NTP synchronization.
17. Symptom: Excessive agent network traffic -> Root cause: Agents forwarding too frequently small batches -> Fix: Tune batching and flush intervals.
18. Symptom: Production deployment causes trace loss -> Root cause: Collector endpoint change not rolled out -> Fix: Coordinate config updates and use canary rollout.
19. Symptom: Query API errors during peak -> Root cause: Rate-limiting or insufficient query nodes -> Fix: Add query replicas and implement caching.
20. Symptom: Tail sampling not capturing errors -> Root cause: Buffer size too small -> Fix: Increase buffer or adjust retention window.
21. Symptom: Tracing adds unacceptable CPU overhead -> Root cause: Excessive synchronous instrumentation -> Fix: Use async exporters and sampling.
22. Symptom: Debugging depends only on traces -> Root cause: Over-reliance without logs/metrics -> Fix: Ensure trace IDs link to logs and metrics for full context.
23. Symptom: Unmanaged access to traces -> Root cause: Missing RBAC -> Fix: Implement RBAC and audit logs.
24. Symptom: No trace for async processing -> Root cause: Missing correlation ID across queue messages -> Fix: Propagate trace IDs through message headers.
25. Symptom: Traces are not searchable by custom field -> Root cause: Field not indexed -> Fix: Add indexing rules for required fields.

Observability pitfalls (at least 5 included above):

• Missing correlation IDs.
• High-cardinality tags.
• Misaligned sampling.
• Non-synced clocks.
• Overdependence on one signal.

---

Best Practices & Operating Model

Ownership and on-call:

• Team owning critical flows should own the tracing configuration for those services.
• Central observability team responsible for platform components (collectors, storage, UI).
• On-call rotations:
• Platform on-call for Jaeger infra.
• Service on-call for instrumented service issues.

Runbooks vs playbooks:

• Runbook: Step-by-step for collector down, missing traces, or high drop rates.
• Playbook: Cross-team incident plan for multi-service outages using traces.

Safe deployments:

• Use canary deployments with tracing to validate performance.
• Rollback plan includes disabling tracing changes if they introduce load.

Toil reduction and automation:

• Automate sampling adjustments based on traffic and error rates.
• Auto-scale collectors and storage tiers.
• Scheduled tag cardinality audits.
• Automate archival and deletion policies.

Security basics:

• Enforce RBAC for UI and APIs.
• Encrypt transport between agents, collectors, and storage.
• Redact PII at instrumentation or collector level.
• Audit access and exports of trace data.

Weekly/monthly routines:

• Weekly: Check collector and agent health metrics, queue trends.
• Monthly: Review storage growth, tag cardinality, and cost.
• Quarterly: Run synthetic trace tests and validate retention.

What to review in postmortems related to Jaeger:

• Was trace coverage sufficient to diagnose the incident?
• Were sampling rates appropriate for critical flows?
• Any instrumentation gaps discovered?
• Did trace-derived alerts behave as expected?

What to automate first:

• Alert for collector queue overflow and automated scaling.
• Sampling policy toggles for burst response.
• Automatic PII redaction checks.
• Daily cardinality and cost reports.

---

Tooling & Integration Map for Jaeger (TABLE REQUIRED)

ID	Category	What it does	Key integrations	Notes
I1	Instrumentation SDK	Generates spans from app code	OpenTelemetry, OpenTracing	Use SDK per language
I2	Agent	Local collector and forwarder	Collector, services	Run as DaemonSet in K8s
I3	Collector	Central ingestion and processing	Storage backends	Scaleable component
I4	Storage	Persists and indexes spans	Cassandra, Elasticsearch	Choose for scale/cost
I5	UI / Query	Trace search and visualization	Jaeger UI or integrated UI	Read-only to storage
I6	Metrics store	Collects Jaeger metrics	Prometheus, Grafana	For alerts and dashboards
I7	Logging system	Correlates logs and traces	Loki, ELK	Include trace IDs in logs
I8	Service mesh	Injects and propagates trace headers	Envoy, Istio	Automatic propagation
I9	CI/CD	Validates instrumentation in deploys	CI runners	Run synthetic trace tests
I10	Alerting	Routes incidents from trace metrics	Pager, ticketing	SLO-based alerts
I11	Cost monitoring	Tracks storage and ingestion costs	Cloud billing tools	Tag resources for tracing
I12	Archive storage	Cold storage for old traces	Object storage	For compliance

Row Details (only if needed)

• I4: Storage choice affects query latency and cost; Elasticsearch easier for search, Cassandra for write scalability.
• I8: Service mesh can auto-inject trace context without code changes; validate sidecar version compatibility.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How do I instrument a service with Jaeger?

Use OpenTelemetry SDK for your language, create spans at request boundaries, propagate context headers across calls, and configure an exporter to send spans to a local agent or collector.

How do I correlate logs with Jaeger traces?

Add trace ID into your logging context during instrumentation so logs include trace_id; then use log system queries to search by trace_id.

How do I configure sampling effectively?

Start with low-probability sampling for high-throughput endpoints and higher rates for critical flows; use tail-based sampling where possible to capture errors.

What’s the difference between Jaeger and Zipkin?

Jaeger and Zipkin are both tracing systems; they differ in defaults, storage integrations, and some features, but both can ingest OpenTracing/OpenTelemetry spans.

What’s the difference between Jaeger and an APM vendor?

APM vendors offer profiling, user experience and often managed storage and deeper code-level insights, while Jaeger focuses on traces and is typically self-hosted or integrated into managed stacks.

What’s the difference between traces and metrics?

Traces show end-to-end request paths with timing and context; metrics are aggregated numeric time-series for trends and alerting.

How do I secure sensitive data in Jaeger?

Do not include PII in tags or logs; implement redaction at instrumentation or collector and enforce RBAC for trace access.

How do I measure Jaeger performance?

Track ingestion rates, trace query latency, span drop rates, indexing lag, and storage growth via collector metrics and Prometheus.

How do I scale Jaeger for high throughput?

Scale collectors horizontally, use a scalable storage backend, tune batching and buffering, and apply sampling to control volume.

How do I debug missing traces?

Check SDK initialization, exporter endpoints, agent and collector health, and context propagation across calls.

How do I export Jaeger data for long-term retention?

Implement archival pipelines to cold storage for older traces and configure lifecycle policies to move data.

How do I use Jaeger in serverless environments?

Use language-supported OpenTelemetry SDKs that target managed collector endpoints; be mindful of cold starts and ephemeral execution.

How do I implement tail-based sampling with Jaeger?

Tail-based sampling requires buffering and decision logic at a collector or pipeline to keep traces with errors; implement using supported pipeline components or external sampler.

How do I limit trace cardinality?

Define allowed tag lists, avoid user-specific tags as indexed fields, and enforce instrumentation guidelines.

How do I integrate Jaeger with service mesh?

Enable tracing in the sidecar proxy configuration so the mesh injects and propagates context automatically.

How do I troubleshoot slow trace queries?

Check storage node health, index sizes, query patterns, and scale query service; use caching for frequent queries.

How do I set SLOs using traces?

Define SLIs such as p95 latency derived from trace data; set SLOs based on business impact and monitor burn rates.

---

Conclusion

Jaeger provides a practical, open-source solution for distributed tracing that, when integrated into a well-constructed observability pipeline, significantly reduces MTTR and improves system understanding. It complements metrics and logs and is essential for modern microservices, serverless, and hybrid cloud environments when used with appropriate sampling, storage, and security controls.

Next 7 days plan:

• Day 1: Inventory critical user journeys and choose initial sampling plan.
• Day 2: Instrument one critical service with OpenTelemetry and send traces to a dev Jaeger.
• Day 3: Deploy agent/collector in pre-prod and validate trace ingestion with synthetic tests.
• Day 4: Build an on-call dashboard and setup basic alerts for collector health and span drops.
• Day 5: Run a short game day to exercise runbooks and trace-based incident response.

---

Appendix — Jaeger Keyword Cluster (SEO)

• Primary keywords
• Jaeger
• Jaeger tracing
• distributed tracing Jaeger
• Jaeger tutorial
• Jaeger vs Zipkin
• Jaeger OpenTelemetry
• Jaeger installation
• Jaeger performance
• Jaeger sampling

• Jaeger architecture

• Related terminology

• distributed tracing
• OpenTelemetry
• span
• trace id
• parent span
• child span
• span context
• agent collector
• jaeger collector
• jaeger agent
• trace sampling
• tail-based sampling
• head-based sampling
• trace storage
• jaeger storage backend
• indexing lag
• trace query latency
• trace retention
• hot storage cold storage
• span enrichment
• baggage propagation
• context propagation
• HTTP middleware tracing
• gRPC interceptor tracing
• service mesh tracing
• sidecar tracing
• jaeger UI
• jaeger query
• trace reconstruction
• trace fragmentation
• high cardinality tags
• low cardinality tags
• trace derived SLI
• p95 p99 traces
• trace based alerts
• jaeger security
• PII redaction tracing
• RBAC tracing
• jaeger in Kubernetes
• jaeger DaemonSet
• jaeger collector autoscale
• jaeger storage sizing
• jaeger cost optimization
• jaeger best practices
• jaeger runbook
• jaeger troubleshooting
• jaeger failure modes
• jaeger deployment pattern
• jaeger canary testing
• jaeger game day
• jaeger postmortem
• jaeger integration map
• jaeger logging correlation
• trace id in logs
• jaeger and prometheus
• jaeger and grafana
• jaeger and loki
• jaeger for serverless
• jaeger for microservices
• jaeger for batch jobs
• jaeger synthetic tracing
• jaeger tail sampling
• jaeger head sampling
• jaeger retention policy
• jaeger archive strategy
• jaeger cost monitoring
• jaeger storage backend choice
• jaeger cassandra
• jaeger elasticsearch
• jaeger troubleshooting checklist
• jaeger incident response
• jaeger observability pipeline
• jaeger telemetry pipeline
• jaeger debug dashboard
• jaeger executive dashboard
• jaeger on-call dashboard
• jaeger performance regression
• jaeger release validation
• jaeger CI integration
• jaeger telemetry validation
• jaeger synthetic tests
• jaeger instrumentation plan
• jaeger SLO design
• jaeger SLIs
• jaeger SLOs
• jaeger error budget
• jaeger burn rate
• jaeger alert routing
• jaeger dedupe alerts
• jaeger observability anti-patterns
• jaeger common mistakes
• jaeger troubleshooting guide
• jaeger glossary
• jaeger keyword cluster
• jaeger SEO keywords
• jaeger content cluster
• jaeger long tail keywords
• jaeger monitoring
• jaeger tracing pipeline
• jaeger latency breakdown
• jaeger db query tracing
• jaeger cold start tracing
• jaeger cache miss tracing
• jaeger async tracing
• jaeger message queue tracing
• jaeger distributed tracing patterns
• jaeger architecture patterns
• jaeger failure modes table
• jaeger metrics SLI table
• jaeger implementation guide
• jaeger production readiness
• jaeger pre production checklist
• jaeger production checklist
• jaeger incident checklist
• jaeger troubleshooting checklist
• jaeger middleware tracing
• jaeger SDKs
• jaeger language support
• jaeger Java tracing
• jaeger Python tracing
• jaeger Node tracing
• jaeger Go tracing
• jaeger dotnet tracing
• jaeger PHP tracing
• jaeger Ruby tracing
• jaeger SDK best practices
• jaeger sampling policy guidelines
• jaeger cardinality guidelines
• jaeger index optimization
• jaeger query optimization