Hubbry Logo
Observability (software)Observability (software)Main
Open search
Observability (software)
Community hub
Observability (software)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Observability (software)
Observability (software)
Observability (software)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In software engineering, more specifically in distributed computing, observability is the ability to collect data about programs' execution, modules' internal states, and the communication among components.[1][2] To improve observability, software engineers use a wide range of logging and tracing techniques to gather telemetry information, and tools to analyze and use it. Observability is foundational to site reliability engineering, as it is the first step in triaging a service outage. One of the goals of observability is to minimize the amount of prior knowledge needed to debug an issue.

Etymology, terminology and definition

[edit]

The term is borrowed from control theory, where the "observability" of a system measures how well its state can be determined from its outputs. Similarly, software observability measures how well a system's state can be understood from the obtained telemetry (metrics, logs, traces, profiling).

The definition of observability varies by vendor:

a measure of how well you can understand and explain any state your system can get into, no matter how novel or bizarre [...] without needing to ship new code

— Honeycomb[3]

software tools and practices for aggregating, correlating and analyzing a steady stream of performance data from a distributed application along with the hardware and network it runs on

— IBM Instana[4]

observability starts by shipping all your raw data to central service before you begin analysis

— Edge Delta[5]

the ability to measure a system’s current state based on the data it generates, such as logs, metrics, and traces

— Dynatrace[6]

Observability is tooling or a technical solution that allows teams to actively debug their system. Observability is based on exploring properties and patterns not defined in advance.

— Google Cloud[7]

proactively collecting, visualizing, and applying intelligence to all of your metrics, events, logs, and traces—so you can understand the behavior of your complex digital system

— New Relic [8]

The term is frequently referred to as its numeronym o11y (where 11 stands for the number of letters between the first letter and the last letter of the word). This is similar to other computer science abbreviations such as i18n and l10n and k8s.[9]

Observability vs. monitoring

[edit]
See also: System monitoring

Observability and monitoring are sometimes used interchangeably.[10] As tooling, commercial offerings and practices evolved in complexity, "monitoring" was re-branded as observability in order to differentiate new tools from the old.

The terms are commonly contrasted in that systems are monitored using predefined sets of telemetry,[7] and monitored systems may be observable.[11]

Majors et al. suggest that engineering teams that only have monitoring tools end up relying on expert foreknowledge (seniority), whereas teams that have observability tools rely on exploratory analysis (curiosity).[3]

Telemetry types

[edit]

Observability relies on three main types of telemetry data: metrics, logs and traces.[6][7][12] Those are often referred to as "pillars of observability".[13]

Metrics

[edit]
Main article: Software metric

A metric is a point in time measurement (scalar) that represents some system state. Examples of common metrics include:

  • number of HTTP requests per second;
  • total number of query failures;
  • database size in bytes;
  • time in seconds since last garbage collection.

Monitoring tools are typically configured to emit alerts when certain metric values exceed set thresholds. Thresholds are set based on knowledge about normal operating conditions and experience.

Metrics are typically tagged to facilitate grouping and searchability.

Application developers choose what kind of metrics to instrument their software with, before it is released. As a result, when a previously unknown issue is encountered, it is impossible to add new metrics without shipping new code. Furthermore, their cardinality can quickly make the storage size of telemetry data prohibitively expensive. Since metrics are cardinality-limited, they are often used to represent aggregate values (for example: average page load time, or 5-second average of the request rate). Without external context, it is impossible to correlate between events (such as user requests) and distinct metric values.

Logs

[edit]
Main article: Logging (computing)

Logs, or log lines, are generally free-form, unstructured text blobs[clarification needed] that are intended to be human readable. Modern logging is structured to enable machine parsability.[3] As with metrics, an application developer must instrument the application upfront and ship new code if different logging information is required.

Logs typically include a timestamp and severity level. An event (such as a user request) may be fragmented across multiple log lines and interweave with logs from concurrent events.

Traces

[edit]
Main article: Tracing (software)

Distributed traces

[edit]

A cloud native application is typically made up of distributed services which together fulfill a single request. A distributed trace is an interrelated series of discrete events (also called spans) that track the progression of a single user request.[3] A trace shows the causal and temporal relationships between the services that interoperate to fulfill a request.

Instrumenting an application with traces means sending span information to a tracing backend. The tracing backend correlates the received spans to generate presentable traces. To be able to follow a request as it traverses multiple services, spans are labeled with unique identifiers that enable constructing a parent-child relationship between spans. Span information is typically shared in the HTTP headers of outbound requests.[3][14][15]

Continuous profiling

[edit]
Main article: Profiling (computer programming)

Continuous profiling is another telemetry type used to precisely determine how an application consumes resources.[16]

Instrumentation

[edit]

To be able to observe an application, telemetry about the application's behavior needs to be collected or exported. Instrumentation means generating telemetry alongside the normal operation of the application.[3] Telemetry is then collected by an independent backend for later analysis.

In fast-changing systems, instrumentation itself is often the best possible documentation, since it combines intention (what are the dimensions that an engineer named and decided to collect?) with the real-time, up-to-date information of live status in production.[3]

Instrumentation can be automatic, or custom. Automatic instrumentation offers blanket coverage and immediate value; custom instrumentation brings higher value but requires more intimate involvement with the instrumented application.

Instrumentation can be native - done in-code (modifying the code of the instrumented application) - or out-of-code (e.g. sidecar, eBPF).

Verifying new features in production by shipping them together with custom instrumentation is a practice called "observability-driven development".[3]

"Pillars of observability"

[edit]

Metrics, logs and traces are most commonly listed as the pillars of observability.[13] Majors et al. suggest that the pillars of observability are high cardinality, high-dimensionality, and explorability, arguing that runbooks and dashboards have little value because "modern systems rarely fail in precisely the same way twice."[3]

Self monitoring

[edit]

Self monitoring is a practice where observability stacks monitor each other, in order to reduce the risk of inconspicuous outages. Self monitoring may be put in place in addition to high availability and redundancy to further avoid correlated failures.

See also

[edit]
[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Observability (software)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , observability refers to the capability of a to allow its internal states to be inferred from its external outputs, enabling engineers to understand, debug, and optimize complex applications without direct access to their internals. This concept, originally developed in by in the as a measure of how well a 's state can be determined from measurements of its outputs, has been adapted to modern distributed and cloud-native software environments where are dynamic, scalable, and often opaque. At its core, relies on three primary pillars—logs, metrics, and traces—which collectively provide comprehensive data for diagnosing issues. Logs capture detailed, time-stamped records of discrete , such as errors or user actions, offering granular insights into system behavior. Metrics aggregate numerical data over time, like CPU usage or request latency, to track trends and indicators. Traces map the end-to-end flow of requests across distributed components, revealing bottlenecks and dependencies in architectures. Some frameworks extend this to include for richer contextual data, emphasizing high-cardinality and high-dimensionality signals that support ad-hoc querying. Unlike traditional monitoring, which focuses on predefined alerts for known issues using periodic checks and dashboards, observability empowers teams to explore unknown problems by asking novel questions of the data, fostering proactive and faster mean time to resolution (MTTR). This distinction is particularly vital in cloud-native systems, where the shift to , containers, and has amplified complexity and failure modes. engineering, as outlined in influential works, promotes practices like from the outset of development to ensure systems generate useful signals without excessive overhead. The adoption of has surged with the rise of and (SRE), delivering benefits such as reduced unplanned downtime (55% of leaders), halved median costs of high-impact outages through full-stack observability (from $2 million to $1 million USD per hour), improved operational efficiency (50%), and positive return on investment (75% of businesses reporting positive returns). Tools and platforms like Honeycomb.io for open-ended querying to explore unknowns, Datadog with Watchdog AI and New Relic for auto-detecting outliers, and OpenTelemetry-based setups with backends such as Lightstep or Grafana for cost-effective implementations standardize its application, integrating AI-driven analysis to automate root-cause detection and remediation in production environments. Despite challenges like data volume management and siloed tools, observability remains essential for maintaining reliability in increasingly resilient, observable software systems.

Origins and Definitions

Etymology and Historical Context

The term "observability" originated in , introduced by Hungarian-American engineer in his 1960 paper "On the General Theory of Control Systems," where it is defined as the measure of how well the internal state of a dynamic system can be inferred from its external outputs, such as measurements or observations. This concept provided a mathematical framework for determining whether a system's unmeasurable variables could be reconstructed from available data, forming a cornerstone of modern . The term saw early applications in software and IT in the , such as in ' discussions on performance management and . The adaptation of observability to software engineering emerged in the amid the rise of complex distributed systems, where traditional monitoring proved insufficient for diagnosing unknown failures in architectures. Early adopters included companies like and , which in the mid-2010s began applying observability principles to manage scalable, cloud-based infrastructures; for instance, developed tools like the Atlas metrics system and Edgar alerting platform to gain insights into service behaviors across thousands of . Similarly, 's practices from this period emphasized high-cardinality data collection to understand system internals, laying groundwork for broader industry adoption. A pivotal milestone occurred in 2016 with the (CNCF), formed in 2015 but gaining momentum that year through the donation of projects like —a monitoring and alerting toolkit that became a for in cloud-native environments. This influenced the standardization of telemetry practices in containerized and Kubernetes-based systems, promoting open-source tools for metrics, logs, and traces. That same year, Charity Majors, then at Parse (acquired by ) and soon co-founder of , popularized the term in software contexts through presentations and writings on observability for , advocating for systems that enable of unforeseen issues via rich, queryable data rather than predefined alerts. Her 2016 efforts, including early talks at conferences like QCon, highlighted observability as essential for modern , shifting focus from reactive monitoring to proactive system understanding.

Core Definition in Software Engineering

In software engineering, observability refers to the degree to which the internal states of a can be inferred from its external outputs, enabling engineers to understand and debug system behavior without requiring modifications to the code or additional after deployment. This concept, adapted from , allows teams to investigate unexpected failures or performance degradations in production environments by analyzing the data the system naturally emits, such as responses to inputs or interactions with users. In practice, it supports answering unanticipated questions about , providing end-to-end visibility across distributed components, and ensuring that the collected data is actionable for root cause analysis. Key attributes of observability in software systems emphasize its focus on unknown unknowns—scenarios where predefined alerts or metrics fall short—rather than relying solely on anticipated issues. This requires high-dimensional data that captures contextual details, allowing engineers to explore correlations and causal relationships dynamically. End-to-end visibility ensures that the system's behavior is traceable from user requests through all layers, including services, , and infrastructure, without silos in data collection. Actionability means the insights derived must guide concrete interventions, such as optimizing bottlenecks or scaling resources, to maintain reliability at scale. In contrast to controllability from , which concerns the ability to steer a system's state through inputs, observability prioritizes inference and diagnosis over manipulation, forming a conceptual duality that underscores passive understanding in software contexts. For instance, in a architecture handling e-commerce traffic, observability might reveal a subtle dependency causing intermittent cart abandonment by correlating output latencies with internal request flows, enabling proactive remediation before customer impact escalates. Similarly, in cloud-native applications, it facilitates early detection of resource contention in containerized workloads, allowing teams to adjust configurations dynamically and prevent outages.

Observability vs. Monitoring

Monitoring in refers to the practice of collecting and analyzing data from systems to detect and alert on predefined conditions, such as thresholds for metrics or rates, typically in a reactive manner to address known failure modes. This approach focuses on reporting overall system health and generating alerts that require human intervention for issues with significant user impact. In contrast, extends beyond monitoring by enabling engineers to understand the internal state of complex systems through rich, queryable data outputs, allowing for the exploration and diagnosis of unknown or unpredictable failures without relying solely on preconfigured alerts. While monitoring assumes prior knowledge of potential issues and emphasizes alerting on predictable symptoms, provides contextual depth to investigate systemic behaviors, making it proactive and exploratory rather than purely reactive. The two concepts are complementary, with encompassing monitoring as a foundational element but adding capabilities for deeper in dynamic environments. For instance, in distributed systems, leverages signals like metrics, logs, and traces to infer causes of issues that monitoring might overlook. The shift toward gained prominence in the alongside the rise of architectures and practices, which introduced greater system complexity and distributed failure modes that traditional monitoring struggled to handle effectively. During the era of monolithic applications, monitoring sufficed for relatively predictable behaviors, but the transition to cloud-native and service-oriented designs necessitated to manage unknowns in real-time. Monitoring offers simplicity and efficiency for basic, stable systems by focusing on essential alerts with minimal overhead, though it can falter in complex setups where failures are novel or interdependent. , while requiring greater investment in and tools, excels at scaling to intricate infrastructures, reducing time to resolution through proactive insights, albeit at the cost of managing high volumes and potential .

Telemetry Signals

Metrics

In software observability, metrics are numerical measurements of system attributes captured over time, forming time-series data that quantify performance, health, and behavior. These data points, such as CPU utilization or request latency, provide aggregated insights into trends and states without retaining raw event details. Unlike event-based signals, metrics emphasize summarization for efficient of large-scale systems. Metrics are categorized into several core types, each suited to specific needs. Counters track monotonically increasing values, such as total counts or request volumes, which reset only on service restarts and are useful for deriving rates like errors per second. Gauges represent instantaneous values that can fluctuate up or down, including examples like current usage or active connections, allowing direct snapshots of state. Histograms capture the distribution of observed values, such as request durations, by bucketing them into ranges and providing like count, sum, and for latency . Summaries, a variant focused on quantiles, precompute (e.g., 95th latency) from samples, enabling quick approximations of tail behaviors without full distribution storage. In practice, metrics support key use cases like aggregation into for visualizing trends, such as throughput over time, and triggering alerts on thresholds, for instance, when rates exceed 5% to detect anomalies proactively. These applications enable teams to correlate aggregate patterns with capacity and reliability, facilitating root cause inference at scale. For example, high CPU gauge values might signal overload, prompting capacity adjustments via views. A prominent standard for metrics is the exposition format, which structures data as key-value pairs in a text-based, line-delimited protocol for scraping by monitoring systems. This format incorporates labels—arbitrary key-value metadata attached to metrics—for multi-dimensional slicing, such as filtering by instance or job, enhancing query flexibility without inflating storage. Complementing this, the OpenTelemetry Metrics specification defines a vendor-neutral with asynchronous and synchronous collection modes, promoting across tools while aligning with Prometheus types for broad adoption in cloud-native environments.

Logs

Logs are timestamped records of discrete events that occur within a , capturing details such as errors, warnings, or user actions to provide a historical of . These records, often referred to as event logs, are immutable and include a alongside the , enabling reconstruction of past activities for . In the of software observability, logs serve as one of the primary signals, offering qualitative insights into states and transitions that quantitative metrics alone cannot capture. Logs can be categorized as structured or unstructured based on their format. Unstructured logs consist of free-form text, which is common but challenging to parse and query programmatically due to the lack of a predefined schema. In contrast, structured logs use formats like JSON or XML, organizing data into key-value fields (e.g., {"level": "error", "message": "Database connection failed", "user_id": "123"}) for easier machine readability, searchability, and integration with observability tools. Structured logging is increasingly recommended for modern applications to facilitate automated analysis and reduce processing overhead. Log entries typically include severity levels to indicate their importance and context, following standards such as those defined in the OpenTelemetry specification. These levels range from fine-grained debugging to critical failures, mapped to numerical values for consistent handling across systems.
Severity Number RangeSeverity TextMeaning
1-4TRACEFine-grained debugging
5-8DEBUGDebugging event
9-12INFOInformational event
13-16WARNWarning event
17-20ERRORError event
21-24FATALFatal error
This structured approach to severity allows tools to filter and prioritize logs effectively during incident response. In observability, logs are primarily used for sequences of events, compliance auditing, and identifying patterns in failures. For , they enable developers to reconstruct the timeline of rare or emergent behaviors in distributed systems, such as unexpected interactions between components. logs, a specialized type, record user actions (e.g., who performed what operation and when) to support and security investigations by providing a verifiable trail of system changes. Additionally, analyzing logs helps uncover recurring failure patterns, such as spikes correlated with specific inputs, aiding in proactive system improvements. Best practices for emphasize including contextual metadata to enable across services and events. Developers should incorporate fields like user ID, request ID, or trace ID (e.g., from W3C Trace Context) in each log entry to link related events without manual effort. Standardizing log formats, such as using for structure and consistent attribute naming, minimizes parsing challenges and supports integration with observability pipelines. Instrumentation for log generation, often via libraries like those compatible with OpenTelemetry, ensures logs are produced at appropriate levels without overwhelming system resources.

Traces

In software observability, traces provide end-to-end visibility into the journey of a single operation or request as it propagates through a distributed system, capturing the causal relationships and timing across multiple components. This is achieved by breaking down the operation into discrete, timed units called spans, each representing a segment of work such as a function call, database query, or network request, allowing practitioners to reconstruct the full path and identify performance issues or failures. Unlike other signals, traces emphasize the sequential flow and dependencies, enabling debugging of complex interactions that span services or . A trace is composed of several key elements that ensure its utility in analysis. The trace ID serves as a for the entire operation, linking all related spans together to form a cohesive view of the request's lifecycle. Each span within a trace has its own span ID, along with annotations for start and end timestamps, duration, and attributes such as error status, HTTP method, or custom metadata that contextualize the work performed. Spans can also include references to parent spans, establishing parent-child hierarchies that model the operation's structure, such as nested calls or parallel branches. Distributed tracing extends this concept to handle interactions across multiple services in modern architectures like or cloud-native environments, where a single user request might invoke dozens of backend components. Trace context, typically propagated via standardized headers (e.g., W3C Trace Context format including traceparent and tracestate), is injected into requests at the and carried forward through HTTP, , or messaging protocols, ensuring continuity even in asynchronous or polyglot systems. To manage the high volume of data generated—potentially millions of spans per second in large-scale deployments—sampling strategies are employed, such as head-based sampling (deciding at the trace's start), tail-based sampling (post-collection analysis for completeness), or rate-limiting to balance coverage with storage costs. These techniques prevent overload while preserving traces for critical paths, like those involving errors or slow responses. Prominent standards and tools have standardized trace implementation to promote interoperability. The OpenTelemetry project, a CNCF-incubated initiative, provides a vendor-agnostic framework for generating, collecting, and exporting traces, supporting multiple languages and integrating with protocols like Zipkin and Jaeger. Jaeger, originally developed by and now open-source, is a widely adopted end-to-end distributed tracing system that stores and visualizes traces, offering features like adaptive sampling and generation to map service interactions. In practice, traces are instrumental for use cases such as pinpointing bottlenecks in architectures; for instance, by analyzing span durations and error rates, teams can detect latency introduced by a specific database query or call, reducing mean time to resolution (MTTR) in production environments.

Continuous Profiling

Continuous profiling, increasingly regarded as the fourth pillar of observability alongside metrics, logs, and traces, refers to the always-on, low-overhead collection of runtime data from production software systems, enabling the identification of resource-intensive code paths without disrupting operations. It involves sampling stack traces and hardware events at regular intervals to profile aspects such as CPU utilization, allocation, and I/O operations, providing a continuous view of application behavior over time. This approach contrasts with traditional, on-demand profiling by maintaining persistent data gathering across distributed environments, often at overheads below 1%. Key techniques in continuous profiling distinguish between deterministic and statistical sampling methods. Deterministic profiling instruments every function call or instruction execution, offering precise measurements but incurring high overhead (typically 100-300% slowdown or more, e.g., 2-3x in Python implementations), making it unsuitable for uninterrupted production use. In contrast, statistical sampling periodically captures stack traces—such as every few milliseconds or N instructions—yielding approximate but representative profiles with minimal impact, often less than 0.01% aggregated overhead through techniques like event-based sampling with tools such as OProfile. Always-on implementations extend this by applying two-dimensional sampling across time and machines in data centers, aggregating data for scalable , while on-demand variants activate profiling selectively during suspected issues. In production environments, continuous profiling excels at detecting hot code paths—regions of code consuming disproportionate resources—and guiding optimizations, such as identifying a compression library like zlib accounting for 5% of CPU cycles across services. It also supports resource allocation in cloud-native systems by revealing inefficiencies in job scheduling, leading to 10-15% improvements in throughput or cost efficiency through targeted refactoring. These insights complement traces by providing granular, runtime-level performance details beyond request timelines. Prominent tools for continuous profiling include Google's pprof, part of the gperftools suite, which supports CPU and heap sampling via statistical methods integrated into languages like Go and C++. Modern eBPF-based profilers, such as Parca and Grafana Pyroscope, leverage kernel-level extended Berkeley Packet Filter technology for language-agnostic, zero-instrumentation collection of stack traces and events, enabling seamless integration into observability stacks like OpenTelemetry. These tools store profiles in queryable formats, facilitating correlation with metrics and traces for holistic system diagnostics.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

Instrumentation Methods

Instrumentation in software observability refers to the process of embedding sensors, hooks, or snippets within an application to generate signals, allowing engineers to measure and understand system behavior without requiring system redesign. This involves adding that captures on , errors, and interactions, which can then be analyzed to infer internal states. Key methods for instrumentation include manual, automated, and language-specific techniques. Manual instrumentation requires developers to explicitly add custom code using APIs and SDKs, such as those provided by OpenTelemetry, to emit from specific points in the application logic. This approach offers precise control over what data is collected but demands direct modifications. Automated instrumentation, often termed zero-code or auto-instrumentation, leverages pre-built libraries or agents to automatically detect and instrument common frameworks and libraries without altering the application's ; for instance, OpenTelemetry's auto-instrumentation libraries support popular ecosystems like web servers and databases. Language-specific methods, such as agents, enable runtime bytecode manipulation to insert code dynamically upon application startup, providing observability for applications without manual edits. Approaches to instrumentation vary by intervention level and system architecture. Source code modification is the most direct, involving edits to the application's to integrate observability hooks, suitable for custom or legacy systems where fine-grained control is needed. Binary instrumentation modifies the compiled executable or at load time or runtime, as seen in agents or tools like those for .NET, allowing telemetry addition post-compilation with minimal developer effort. Sidecar proxies, commonly used in architectures like Istio, deploy a separate proxy alongside the application to intercept and instrument network traffic, generating on inter-service communications without touching the application code itself. Critical considerations in instrumentation include minimizing performance overhead and adhering to semantic conventions for data consistency. Overhead arises from the computational cost of generating and exporting ; manual methods may introduce higher latency than automated approaches, depending on implementation, while techniques such as sampling and asynchronous exporting help mitigate this. Semantic conventions, defined by standards like OpenTelemetry, ensure uniform naming and structuring of attributes across signals, facilitating correlation and analysis in diverse environments.

Telemetry Collection and Aggregation

Telemetry collection in software observability involves gathering raw data signals—such as metrics, logs, and traces—from instrumented applications and infrastructure using specialized agents and collectors. These agents, often lightweight processes running on hosts or within containers, capture data at the source and forward it to central systems for further processing. For instance, Fluentd serves as a widely adopted open-source data collector for logs, unifying disparate log formats from various sources into a structured stream for downstream analysis. Similarly, the OpenTelemetry Protocol (OTLP) facilitates the collection of traces and metrics in a vendor-neutral manner, enabling interoperability across different observability tools. Collection models typically employ either a push approach, where agents proactively send data to a receiver, or a pull model, where a central collector periodically queries endpoints for updates; the push model is favored in dynamic environments like microservices for its low latency, while pull models suit scenarios requiring controlled polling to manage resource usage. Once collected, telemetry data undergoes aggregation to reduce volume, enhance usability, and enable across signals. Aggregation processes include sampling, which selectively retains a subset of events to mitigate data explosion—such as head-based or tail-based sampling for traces to preserve critical paths without overwhelming storage. Filtering discards irrelevant data based on predefined rules, like excluding low-severity logs during normal operations, thereby optimizing bandwidth and compute resources. Joining signals is a key step, often achieved by embedding correlation identifiers (e.g., trace IDs) into logs and metrics, allowing systems to link disparate events; this enables root-cause analysis in distributed systems by reconstructing request flows from fragmented data. Storage solutions for aggregated telemetry are tailored to the signal type to support efficient querying and long-term retention. Time-series databases like are commonly used for metrics, leveraging their optimized indexing for high-ingress rates and fast aggregations over temporal data, such as calculating average CPU usage across a cluster. For logs and traces, searchable indexes like provide capabilities, storing in inverted indexes to facilitate complex queries, such as filtering traces by service latency thresholds. These systems often integrate with for cost-effective archival of historical data. Scalability in telemetry collection and aggregation is critical for distributed systems, where high cardinality—arising from numerous unique dimensions like user IDs or tags—can lead to exponential growth. Techniques such as and adaptive sampling address this by dynamically adjusting collection rates based on system load, ensuring sub-second query latencies even at petabyte scales. Retention policies further manage by enforcing automated lifecycle management, such as compressing and expiring older metrics after 30 days while preserving recent traces for ; these policies balance compliance needs, like GDPR data minimization, with operational requirements for historical analysis.

Frameworks and Principles

The Pillars of Observability

The concept of the three pillars of observability—logs, metrics, and traces—emerged in the as a foundational framework for understanding complex distributed systems, popularized by practitioners such as Cindy Sridharan in her 2017 writings and subsequent 2020 book Distributed Systems Observability. This triad provides a structured approach to and analysis, enabling engineers to infer internal system states from external outputs without predefined for every possible failure mode. While not exhaustive, the pillars represent core signals that shift from reactive monitoring to proactive insight generation. The pillars interrelate to form a holistic view of : metrics offer aggregated, quantitative summaries of indicators (such as rates or latency averages) that trigger alerts on anomalies, traces delineate the flow of individual requests across services to pinpoint bottlenecks or failures in specific paths, and logs supply detailed, event-specific context (including messages or state changes) to explain the "why" behind observed issues. For instance, an elevated metric might alert on high latency, a correlated trace could reveal the contributing service interactions, and associated logs would provide the granular details needed for root cause analysis. This synergy allows for correlated querying across signals, reducing debugging time in environments where failures propagate unpredictably. Despite their foundational role, the three pillars have limitations in addressing certain and -related issues, particularly those involving code-level inefficiencies like memory leaks or CPU-intensive functions that do not manifest clearly in aggregated metrics, sequential traces, or discrete log events. Additional signals, such as continuous profiling, are necessary to capture always-on, low-overhead snapshots of runtime behavior (e.g., stack traces weighted by usage), enabling deeper insights into "unknown unknowns" without relying solely on request-centric data. The pillars framework has significantly influenced industry standards, most notably OpenTelemetry, a CNCF project that standardizes the collection, processing, and export of traces, metrics, and logs to promote vendor-neutral observability tooling. OpenTelemetry's architecture explicitly supports these signals through unified APIs and SDKs, facilitating their integration in cloud-native ecosystems and driving widespread adoption for consistent telemetry pipelines.

Self-Monitoring in Systems

Self-monitoring in observability refers to the application of observability principles to the monitoring infrastructure itself, where components such as data collectors, storage , and pipelines generate their own to identify and resolve issues like data ingestion failures or loss. This approach ensures that the observability stack remains reliable by treating it as a system under observation, similar to the applications it monitors. For instance, tools like expose an HTTP endpoint at /metrics that provides internal metrics about scraping performance, query execution, and resource usage, allowing the system to self-scrape and alert on anomalies such as high latency in metric collection. Key techniques for include checks, which verify the operational status of monitoring components through periodic probes, and meta-metrics that track the performance of the , such as rates, drop counts, and processing latency to detect bottlenecks or early. In the Elastic Stack (), stack monitoring deploys dedicated agents on and Logstash nodes to collect and ship internal logs and metrics to a separate monitoring cluster, enabling visibility into cluster , node failures, and indexing throughput without interfering with primary operations. Recursive tracing extends this by applying distributed tracing to the tools themselves, capturing spans for flows within the monitoring to diagnose propagation delays or errors in trace collection. Examples of self-monitoring in practice include Prometheus's self-scraping configuration, where the server targets its own endpoint in the scrape configuration file to monitor metrics like prometheus_notifications_total for alert delivery success rates, ensuring no blind spots in alerting reliability. Similarly, the ELK Stack logs its own operations through built-in exporters that forward Elasticsearch slow logs and Logstash pipeline events to the monitoring indices, allowing operators to query for issues like shard allocation failures or parsing errors. These implementations draw from the pillars of observability—metrics, logs, and traces—applied recursively to the infrastructure. The primary benefits of lie in preventing observability blind spots, as failures in the monitoring stack could otherwise go undetected, leading to delayed incident response or incomplete diagnostics in production environments. By maintaining on the tools themselves, organizations achieve higher resilience. This proactive layer ultimately enhances overall system reliability without requiring external oversight tools.

Tools for Advanced Production Observability

Several tools support advanced production observability specifically for discovering unknowns in complex systems. Honeycomb.io facilitates open-ended querying to explore high-cardinality data and uncover issues without relying on predefined queries, enabling rapid investigation of "unknown unknowns" with sub-second response times. Datadog's Watchdog AI automates the detection of outliers and anomalies across metrics, logs, and traces by analyzing patterns in observability data. New Relic offers outlier detection capabilities that identify entities exhibiting unusual behavior compared to peers in production environments. The OpenTelemetry standard, when integrated with backends such as Lightstep or Grafana, provides cost-effective setups for collecting and analyzing telemetry signals, supporting scalable and vendor-neutral observability pipelines.

Applications and Challenges

Role in Distributed and Cloud-Native Environments

In distributed systems, plays a pivotal role in managing partial failures, where components may degrade without fully crashing, complicating diagnosis in highly interconnected architectures. Unlike traditional monitoring, which relies on predefined alerts, enables engineers to query dynamic data from logs, metrics, and traces to uncover subtle issues like latency spikes or across services. This approach is essential as partial failures can propagate unpredictably, and studies show that such incidents occur more commonly than total failures and account for a significant portion of outages in large-scale systems. Service meshes, such as Istio and Linkerd, further amplify this by automatically injecting tracing into inter-service communications, providing end-to-end visibility without modifying application code. In cloud-native environments, observability integrates seamlessly with for and , allowing tools to dynamically map dependencies and monitor ephemeral workloads. , a CNCF-graduated project originating in 2012, excels in scraping metrics from pods and services, enabling real-time alerting on cluster health. Complementing this, Jaeger—another CNCF project started in 2015—facilitates distributed tracing to visualize request flows across , integrating with labels for contextual service identification. These integrations support auto-scaling and in dynamic environments, where manual monitoring falls short. Notable adoptions highlight observability's impact: leverages distributed tracing in its practices to analyze traces from simulated failures, improving resilience during high-traffic events, as seen in tools like for post-experiment troubleshooting. Similarly, Google's (SRE) emphasizes the "four golden signals"—latency, , errors, and saturation—as core observability metrics to maintain 99.99% availability in distributed systems. The evolution of observability accelerated with the 2010s microservices boom, as projects like joined CNCF in 2016 to address scaling challenges in containerized deployments. By the , extensions have emerged for AI/ML workloads in cloud-native setups, incorporating model-specific such as latency and drift detection to ensure reliable deployment of pipelines alongside traditional services. OpenTelemetry, formed in 2019 through the merger of OpenTracing and OpenCensus, exemplifies this shift by standardizing instrumentation for both conventional and AI-driven systems.

Implementation Challenges and Best Practices

Implementing in software systems presents several significant challenges, primarily stemming from the scale and complexity of modern applications. One major obstacle is volume overload, where the influx of logs, metrics, and traces can overwhelm storage and resources; for instance, organizations often generate petabytes of annually, leading to bottlenecks in analysis tools. Tool sprawl exacerbates this issue, as teams typically employ multiple disparate monitoring solutions, resulting in fragmented and increased management overhead—surveys indicate that 52% of organizations are actively consolidating tools to address this as of 2025. Costs associated with storage and further compound the problem, with high-impact outages averaging $2 million per hour; full-stack observability implementations have been shown to halve these median outage costs. concerns, particularly the inadvertent exposure of sensitive in logs such as personally identifiable information (PII) or keys, pose risks of breaches if not properly sanitized during collection and transmission. Additionally, many organizations still lack comprehensive full-stack visibility across the entire technology stack. To overcome these hurdles, 2025 best practices for full-stack observability in enterprises emphasize unified, AI-enhanced monitoring across the frontend, applications, infrastructure, security, and user experience to reduce downtime, mean time to resolution (MTTR), and costs while enabling proactive operations. Organizations should prioritize instrumenting mission-critical user journeys first to close telemetry gaps and ensure full-stack coverage. Adopting OpenTelemetry as the vendor-neutral standard is widely recommended for its support of unified collection of traces, metrics, and logs through automatic instrumentation, efficient collectors for sampling and filtering, and seamless integration across cloud-native environments. Consolidating disparate monitoring tools into unified observability platforms (such as those offered by major providers) combats tool sprawl and delivers holistic visibility, with 52% of organizations actively pursuing such consolidation. Integrating AI and machine learning capabilities enables predictive analytics, advanced anomaly detection, automated root cause analysis, and remediation actions, shifting observability from reactive to proactive. AI monitoring adoption has reached 54% of organizations in 2025. Implementing observability as code, defining Service Level Objectives (SLOs) aligned with business KPIs such as revenue at risk and customer experience, and centralizing observability models further enhance effectiveness; case studies have demonstrated MTTR improvements of up to 40% through these approaches. Cost optimization is achieved through intelligent data sampling, focused instrumentation on critical paths, and linking observability insights to cloud spend management. Fostering a culture of shared responsibility across development, operations, and security teams ensures observability is embedded throughout the organization. These practices contribute to significant benefits, including halved median outage costs, improved operational efficiency with over 50% of organizations reporting gains in key areas, and enhanced security and system resilience. Success in observability implementations can be measured by key metrics such as mean time to detection (MTTD) and mean time to resolution (MTTR), which typically improve substantially with integrated tools; for example, correlating signals has been shown to reduce MTTD from hours to minutes in production systems. Looking ahead, future trends include AI-driven , which correlates multi-signal data to predict issues proactively, with 54% of organizations adopting AI monitoring as of 2025 to automate alerting and . Additionally, zero-instrumentation techniques via enable low-overhead tracing without code changes, as demonstrated in runtime auto-instrumentation projects that maintain performance under 3% overhead.

References

  1. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/observability
  2. https://www.control.utoronto.ca/~broucke/ece557f/kalman.pdf
  3. https://www.splunk.com/en_us/blog/learn/observability.html
  4. https://newrelic.com/blog/best-practices/what-is-observability
  5. https://www.dynatrace.com/news/blog/what-is-observability-2/
  6. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/observability-engineering/9781492076438/
  7. https://newrelic.com/resources/report/observability-forecast/2025
  8. https://www.honeycomb.io/blog/what-is-observability-key-components-best-practices
  9. https://docs.datadoghq.com/watchdog/
  10. https://docs.newrelic.com/docs/alerts/create-alert/set-thresholds/outlier-detection/
  11. https://docs.lightstep.com/tagged/opentelemetry
  12. https://grafana.com/docs/opentelemetry/
  13. https://www.cncf.io/blog/2025/12/16/how-to-build-a-cost-effective-observability-platform-with-opentelemetry/
  14. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1104873
  15. https://www.filibeto.org/sun/lib/blueprints/1299/observab.pdf
  16. https://academy.broadcom.com/blog/aiops/from-kalman-to-kubernetes-a-history-of-observability-in-it
  17. https://netflixtechblog.com/lessons-from-building-observability-tools-at-netflix-7cfafed6ab17
  18. https://www.aquasec.com/cloud-native-academy/cloud-native-applications/cloud-native-landscape/
  19. https://www.honeycomb.io/blog/observability-5-year-retrospective
  20. https://www.infoq.com/presentations/microservices-operations-2016/
  21. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-241j-dynamic-systems-and-control-spring-2011/2f03f88e1a714f3ccdb0b7b3f05a2c55_MIT6_241JS11_chap24.pdf
  22. https://www.honeycomb.io/resources/getting-started/what-is-observability-engineering
  23. https://www.newrelic.com/blog/best-practices/what-is-observability
  24. https://www.datadoghq.com/knowledge-center/observability/
  25. https://www.elastic.co/what-is/observability
  26. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/distributed-systems-observability/9781492033431/ch02.html
  27. https://newrelic.com/blog/best-practices/observability-vs-monitoring
  28. https://opentelemetry.io/docs/concepts/observability-primer/
  29. https://prometheus.io/docs/concepts/metric_types/
  30. https://www.elastic.co/blog/observability-metrics
  31. https://elastisys.com/what-was-observability-again/
  32. https://prometheus.io/docs/concepts/data_model/
  33. https://opentelemetry.io/docs/specs/otel/metrics/
  34. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/distributed-systems-observability/9781492033431/ch04.html
  35. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9996502/
  36. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3698322.3698351
  37. https://opentelemetry.io/docs/specs/otel/logs/data-model/
  38. https://opentelemetry.io/docs/specs/otel/logs/
  39. https://em360tech.com/tech-articles/why-continuous-profiling-fourth-pillar-observability
  40. https://www.elastic.co/what-is/continuous-profiling
  41. https://research.google.com/pubs/archive/36575.pdf
  42. https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/engineering/how-we-wrote-a-python-profiler/
  43. https://grafana.com/docs/pyroscope/latest/introduction/continuous-profiling/
  44. https://www.cncf.io/blog/2022/05/31/what-is-continuous-profiling/
  45. https://opentelemetry.io/docs/concepts/instrumentation/
  46. https://opentelemetry.io/docs/concepts/instrumentation/code-based/
  47. https://opentelemetry.io/docs/concepts/instrumentation/zero-code/
  48. https://opentelemetry.io/docs/zero-code/java/agent/
  49. https://istio.io/latest/docs/concepts/observability/
  50. https://copyconstruct.medium.com/logs-and-metrics-6d34d3026e38
  51. https://www.dash0.com/knowledge/logs-metrics-and-traces-observability
  52. https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/observability-pillars
  53. https://www.elastic.co/blog/observability-profiling-metrics-logs-traces
  54. https://itnext.io/observability-beyond-the-three-pillars-profiling-in-da-house-71c7cbe9a730
  55. https://www.honeycomb.io/blog/opentelemetry-is-not-three-pillars
  56. https://grafana.com/docs/grafana/latest/alerting/set-up/meta-monitoring/
  57. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/distributed-systems-observability/9781492033431/
  58. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/nsdi20-paper-lou.pdf
  59. https://www.cncf.io/projects/prometheus/
  60. https://www.cncf.io/projects/jaeger/
  61. https://netflixtechblog.com/building-netflixs-distributed-tracing-infrastructure-bb856c319304
  62. https://netflixtechblog.com/edgar-solving-mysteries-faster-with-observability-e1a76302c71f
  63. https://sre.google/sre-book/monitoring-distributed-systems/
  64. https://www.cncf.io/announcements/2016/05/09/cloud-native-computing-foundation-accepts-prometheus-as-second-hosted-project/
  65. https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/observability-gen-ai
  66. https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/05/21/a-brief-history-of-opentelemetry-so-far/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.