oteps VS profiler

Oh nice, thank you (and also solumos) for the links! It looks like oteps/pull/171 (merged June 2023) expanded and superseded the opentelemetry-proto/pull/346 PR (closed Jul 2022) [0]. The former resulted in merging OpenTelemetry Enhancement Proposal 156 [1], with some interesting results especially for 'Phase 2' where they implemented columnar storage end-to-end (see the Validation section [2]):

* For univariate time series, OTel Arrow is 2 to 2.5 better in terms of bandwidth reduction ... and the end-to-end speed is 3.1 to 11.2 times faster

* For multivariate time series, OTel Arrow is 3 to 7 times better in terms of bandwidth reduction ... Phase 2 has [not yet] been .. estimated but similar results are expected.

* For logs, OTel Arrow is 1.6 to 2 times better in terms of bandwidth reduction ... and the end-to-end speed is 2.3 to 4.86 times faster

* For traces, OTel Arrow is 1.7 to 2.8 times better in terms of bandwidth reduction ... and the end-to-end speed is 3.37 to 6.16 times faster

[0]: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-proto/pull/3...

[1]: https://github.com/open-telemetry/oteps/blob/main/text/0156-...

[2]: https://github.com/open-telemetry/oteps/blob/main/text/0156-...

https://github.com/open-telemetry/oteps/issues/139

It takes a lot of time and effort to bake a cross-vendor cross-language standard.

This. The statelessness of the OTLP is by design. I did consider stateful designs with e.g. shared state dictionary compression but eventually chose not to, so that the intermediaries can remain stateless.

An extension to OTLP that uses shared state (and columnar encoding) to achieve more compact representation and is suitable for the last network leg in the data delivery path has been proposed and may become a reality in the future: https://github.com/open-telemetry/oteps/pull/171

Probably your best bet is to use the Firefox Profiler once it starts hogging the CPU to try to see what it's doing. I'd be happy to take a look at the result although I don't have a lot of experience at diagnosing performance problems; hopefully the profile will make it obvious what's going on.

I tried using the https://profiler.firefox.com/ and running with:

You can try to reproduce while taking a profile using the Firefox profiler, then share it in the #perf:mozilla.org room on Mozilla's Matrix instance.

Run a profiling session for ~30 sec when you notice something is running slower than you expect, see https://profiler.firefox.com/. Share results here if you want help interpreting them.

Next time, send a SIGABRT to the main process (kill -6 $(pidof firefox)) and use the resulting backtrace (you will find a link to the crash report in about:crashes) to file a bug. A performance profile could be useful, but you'll need to know first what to capture. This seems like a graphics issue, so try the Graphics preset. Share a link to your report.

https://profiler.firefox.com will be useful if you can capture and share it to developers.

If you can reproduce it in safe mode and a clean profile, capture a performance profile using the clean profile while trying to load a problematic webpage, don't remove any information from it, and share it here (although it's typically not easy for users to analyse them), or file a bug with it attached.

Next time, capture a performance profile using the Graphics preset, and kill the browser by entering kill -6 $(pidof firefox) in a shell. This will create a bug report (unless debian disables the crash reporter) that would indicate where Firefox is stuck at. You might need to use an official build to get useful results.