opentelemetry-dotnet VS .NET Runtime

open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet: The OpenTelemetry .NET Client (github.com)

💡Good to know -- If you wish to export traces to Jaeger, you should use the AddJaegerExporter instead of the AddOtlpExporter. Visit the opentelemetry-dotnet repository to see how it's done.

We're going to use OpenTelemetry .NET SDK. Add following nuget dependencies to the project:

We instrument the application with the OpenTelemetry SDK and SqlClient instrumentation library for .NET. First, we add the following NuGet package references to the API’s project file:

It should be handled automatically by OpenTelemetry middlewares. Just look through documentation and samples https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-dotnet

Besides that, the propagation fields (traceparent and tracestate) were added in the message header. In the last article, I said that the standard (in the Working Draft (WD) step of the w3c process) recommends to add the propagation fields in the application-properties section by the message publisher. For the current example, I chose to propagate that context in the message header even for AMQP calls as was done in the dotnet OpenTelemetry example. It's important to reinforce that Trace Context: AMQP protocol is not a W3C Recommendation yet. Take a look at the place where the propagation fields were added:

As long as the Azure Functions app knows the instrumentation key from an Application Insights instance, it traces almost everything. OpenTelemetry.NET is one of the Open Telemetry implementations, has recently released v1.0 for tracing. Both metrics and logging are close to GA. However, it doesn't work well with Azure Functions. Therefore, in this post, let's manually implement the tracing at the log level, which is sent to Application Insights.

Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].

Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.

* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)

If you care about portable SIMD and performance, you may want to save yourself trouble and skip to C# instead, it also has an extensive guide to using it: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/69110bfdcf5590db1d32c...

CoreLib and many new libraries are using it heavily to match performance of manually intensified C++ code.

DEBUG: packageFiles with updates (repository=local) "config": { "nuget": [ { "deps": [ { "datasource": "nuget", "depType": "nuget", "depName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "currentValue": "7.0.0", "updates": [ { "bucket": "non-major", "newVersion": "7.0.1", "newValue": "7.0.1", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-02-14T13:21:52.713Z", "newMajor": 7, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "patch", "branchName": "renovate/dotnet-monorepo" }, { "bucket": "major", "newVersion": "8.0.0", "newValue": "8.0.0", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-11-14T13:23:17.653Z", "newMajor": 8, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "major", "branchName": "renovate/major-dotnet-monorepo" } ], "packageName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "versioning": "nuget", "warnings": [], "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime", "registryUrl": "https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json", "homepage": "https://dot.net/", "currentVersion": "7.0.0", "isSingleVersion": true, "fixedVersion": "7.0.0" } ], "packageFile": "RenovateDemo.csproj" } ] }

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/59591

Support zstd Content-Encoding:

We might not be that far away already. There is this issue[1] on Github, where Microsoft and the community discuss some significant changes.

There is still a lot of questions unanswered, but initial tests look promising.

Ref: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620

https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet exists for source build that stitches together SDK, Roslyn, runtime and other dependencies. A lot of them can be built and used individually, which is what contributors usually do. For example, you can clone and build https://github.com/dotnet/runtime and use the produced artifacts to execute .NET assemblies or build .NET binaries.

Yeah, it kind of is. There are quite a few of experiments that are conducted to see if they show promise in the prototype form and then are taken further for proper integration if they do.

Unfortunately, object stack allocation was not one of them even though DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocation configuration knob exists today, enabling it makes zero impact as it almost never kicks in. By the end of the experiment[0], it was concluded that before investing effort in this kind of feature becomes profitable given how a lot of C# code is written, there are many other lower hanging fruits.

To contrast this, in continuation to green threads experiment, a runtime handled tasks experiment[1] which moves async state machine handling from IL emitted by Roslyn to special-cased methods and then handling purely in runtime code has been a massive success and is now being worked on to be integrated in one of the future version of .NET (hopefully 10?)

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/11192

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...

Orderby Linq Code Reference

The math of the above is really simple. Microsoft has 13,000 stars on their GitHub profile for their flagship product. SupaBase has 63,000 stars on their GitHub project for their flagship product. 27% of all software developers in the world are using .Net. SupaBase has 4.5 times as many likes as the .Net Core runtime, so they must be 4.5 times as large, right? 4.5 multiplied by 27% becomes 130%. Implying 130% of all software developers that exists on earth are using SupaBase (apparently!)