Tracing on lo0 — Tech Blog

LLM tracing with OpenTelemetry GenAI: the aircraft black box the field stabilised in 2026

Wed, 27 May 2026 11:00:00 +0200

This post complements the one on Prompt versioning with Langfuse and MLflow, where prompt_id@version appeared as a span attribute without the whole pipeline being explained, and the one on Evals for LLMs, which distinguishes tracing from eval. Here we go inside tracing itself.

TL;DR

OpenTelemetry GenAI, the gen_ai.* and mcp.* semantic conventions, have been stable since late 2025, and as of May 2026 they are the substrate on which the whole ecosystem (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust, Arize, Honeycomb, Datadog, New Relic) builds its LLM observability. That means your team instruments once, against OTel, and picks a backend afterwards; not the other way round. The canonical pipeline is application → OTel SDK (OpenLLMetry or openinference) → OTel Collector → backend(s), with two-layer sampling (head-based at 1-5 % to keep volume viable, tail-based at 100 % over errors and high latencies). This post takes apart the exact attributes you have to fill in on each span (gen_ai.system, request.model, usage.input_tokens, and so on), the operational difference between the three usual SDKs, and the anatomy of a real chat-with-RAG-and-tool trace with all its child spans.

You are here: OBSERVE

The analogy: the aircraft black box

An aircraft black box does three things at once:

It records everything without anyone having to ask for it explicitly. Every flight parameter, every cockpit conversation, every action by the pilots is logged with a precise timestamp and a standardised format.
It uses a format everybody knows. Any air accident investigator anywhere in the world can read the black box of any manufacturer, because the schema is agreed between all of them. There is no “Boeing black box” and “Airbus black box”: there is one single black box.
It survives the event: it is designed on the assumption that the aircraft may go down. It does not depend on the aircraft itself to be stored or to be read.

LLM tracing with OTel GenAI does exactly those three things:

It records everything automatically. Every model call, every agent step, every tool call, every RAG retrieval ends up as a span, a unit of work with a start, an end, attributes and a parent/child relationship with other spans.
It uses a common format. The attributes gen_ai.request.model, gen_ai.usage.input_tokens, gen_ai.response.finish_reasons and the rest are agreed by the OpenTelemetry GenAI working group and every backend respects them.
It survives the backend. Spans do not travel straight to Langfuse: they travel to an intermediate OTel Collector that handles buffering, sampling and fan-out to 1, 2 or N backends. If Langfuse goes down, the Collector holds the spans.

The analogy is not decorative: it is the only way to understand why OTel GenAI beat the ecosystem of proprietary SDKs that every vendor shipped in 2023-2024. The standardised black box beats the proprietary recorder, every time.

Why OTel GenAI exists (and why it won)

The state of things at the end of 2024 was broken: every vendor shipped its own SDK with its own attribute names. LangSmith called it model_name, OpenLLMetry called it llm.model, Helicone called it model. If you wanted to change observability provider, you re-instrumented the whole application. For serious teams, that was unacceptable.

OpenTelemetry already had a framework to solve this: the semantic conventions. A working group (the OpenTelemetry GenAI SIG) proposed a schema. In 2025 it reached “Stable” for the attributes of the basic modality (chat completions + tool calls), and in 2026 it also covers multimodal, embeddings and reasoning modalities.

What changes in practice:

Before (proprietary SDKs): you move from Langfuse to Phoenix → you re-instrument, re-deploy everything, lose the history.
Now (OTel): you move from Langfuse to Phoenix → you edit the exporter in otel-collector-config.yaml, reload the Collector, and the new spans go to the new destination without touching a line of application code.

The canonical `gen_ai.*` attributes

As of May 2026 the stable attributes, that is, the ones that are not going to change, are those in the table. There are more in “experimental” state (multimodal, reasoning) and others in “deprecated” (kept for compatibility).

Attribute	Meaning	Example
`gen_ai.system`	Provider family	`openai`, `anthropic`, `vllm`, `huggingface`
`gen_ai.request.model`	Model requested	`gpt-4o`, `meta-llama/Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct`
`gen_ai.request.temperature`	Sampling temp	`0.7`
`gen_ai.request.max_tokens`	Output cap	`1024`
`gen_ai.request.top_p`	Nucleus sampling	`0.95`
`gen_ai.response.model`	Model that answered (may differ)	`gpt-4o-2024-08-06`
`gen_ai.response.id`	ID of the provider’s response	`chatcmpl-9xY...`
`gen_ai.response.finish_reasons`	Finish reasons	`["stop"]`, `["length"]`, `["tool_calls"]`
`gen_ai.usage.input_tokens`	Input tokens	`1247`
`gen_ai.usage.output_tokens`	Output tokens	`412`
`gen_ai.operation.name`	Operation type	`chat`, `text_completion`, `embeddings`
`gen_ai.prompt.id`	ID of the versioned prompt	`customer_support_v3`
`gen_ai.prompt.version`	Specific version	`14`
`gen_ai.prompt.label`	Semantic label	`production`, `staging`, `canary`
`gen_ai.conversation.id`	Multiturn conversation ID	`session_abc123`

And for tool calls (a function invoked by the model), the gen_ai.tool.* attributes:

Attribute	Meaning
`gen_ai.tool.call.id`	ID of the specific tool call
`gen_ai.tool.name`	Name of the tool
`gen_ai.tool.type`	`function`, `mcp`, and so on
`gen_ai.tool.description`	Short description

And for tool calls over MCP (Model Context Protocol), the mcp.* attributes add a specific layer (mcp.server.name, mcp.method, mcp.session.id and others) that coexists with the gen_ai.* ones.

The practical rule: if your instrumentation fills in these attributes on every span, the Langfuse dashboard, the Tempo graph and the Prometheus metrics come out “for free”, because all three know how to read the convention.

The canonical pipeline: SDK → Collector → backends

Three layers, each with its own responsibility:

1 · The SDK

Three dominant options in 2026:

OpenLLMetry (Traceloop) — the most widespread. It automatically instruments the OpenAI Python SDK, the Anthropic SDK, LangChain, LlamaIndex, Haystack, Cohere, Mistral, vLLM and almost any library in the ecosystem. A single line (Traceloop.init()) instruments everything. Apache 2.0 licence. It maintains its own fork with extensions that are not yet in OTel core, but it exports in line with the convention.

openinference (Arize) — a direct competitor, also Apache 2.0. Closer to Phoenix (same vendor) but it exports standard OTel. Better instrumentation for LangChain/LlamaIndex/DSPy in some versions; worse for vLLM directly.

Langfuse SDK — proprietary in form (the API is Langfuse’s), but underneath it emits OTel spans. The natural choice if Langfuse is the main backend. It has the best support for “session” and “user” linking, concepts that are not yet in OTel core but that Langfuse maps to gen_ai.conversation.id for compatibility.

Practical recommendation for May 2026: OpenLLMetry if you want to stay backend-agnostic (you will change provider); the Langfuse SDK if Langfuse is already your bet (you save yourself a mapping). Both produce valid spans that any Collector consumes.

2 · The OTel Collector

The Collector is the most important piece of the pipeline and the least talked about. Three responsibilities:

Buffering: if Langfuse or Tempo have a problem, the Collector holds the spans in memory (or on disk with persistence enabled) and re-emits them when the backend returns.

Sampling: it applies the two sampling layers (next section) without the application knowing anything about it.

Routing: with the exporters config it points at one or several backends at once. The usual practice is to send to Langfuse + Tempo + Prometheus simultaneously:

Langfuse for the LLM-first UI (prompts, evals, user sessions).
Tempo (or Jaeger) for the full distributed context (an LLM span inside an HTTP request that has touched 12 microservices).
Prometheus for aggregated metrics (P95 latency per model, tokens per second, error rate).

A representative production fragment of otel-collector-config.yaml:

receivers:
 otlp:
 protocols:
 grpc:
 endpoint: 0.0.0.0:4317
 http:
 endpoint: 0.0.0.0:4318

processors:
 batch:
 timeout: 1s
 send_batch_size: 1024
 tail_sampling:
 decision_wait: 10s
 policies:
 - name: errors
 type: status_code
 status_code: { status_codes: [ERROR] }
 - name: slow_traces
 type: latency
 latency: { threshold_ms: 5000 }
 - name: head_5pct
 type: probabilistic
 probabilistic: { sampling_percentage: 5 }

exporters:
 otlphttp/langfuse:
 endpoint: https://langfuse.internal:3000/api/public/otel/v1
 headers: { Authorization: "Basic ${LANGFUSE_AUTH}" }
 otlp/tempo:
 endpoint: tempo:4317
 tls: { insecure: true }
 prometheus:
 endpoint: 0.0.0.0:8889

service:
 pipelines:
 traces:
 receivers: [otlp]
 processors: [tail_sampling, batch]
 exporters: [otlphttp/langfuse, otlp/tempo]
 metrics:
 receivers: [otlp]
 processors: [batch]
 exporters: [prometheus]

3 · The backends

Langfuse is the dominant option for OSS LLM observability (MIT licence, complete suite: tracing + evals + prompts + datasets). Its model assumes OTel trace_id and span_id and draws them in the UI with the LLM context expanded (formatted messages, counted tokens, costs calculated from a model→price mapping).

Phoenix (Arize, ELv2 licence) has a more eval-first focus. Useful if your team comes from classic NLP and wants UMAP embedding visualisation by default.

LangSmith (LangChain) is proprietary, not OSS. Excellent integration with LangChain/LangGraph; less relevant if you do not use that stack.

Tempo / Jaeger show the LLM traces inside the context of the distributed request. It is what you need when a customer reports that “the page takes 8 seconds” and you want to see whether those 8 seconds are the model, the retrieval or the downstream microservice.

Sampling: the two layers that coexist

Without sampling, a system at 10 req/s generates about 26 million spans a month. The backend drowns, the cost explodes and most of the spans are redundant (200 similar requests tell you no more than 20).

The canonical pattern in 2026 is two combined layers:

Head-based sampling (on the way in)

You decide before the span exists whether you are going to trace it or not, based on a probabilistic decision (1-5 % typically) or on a deterministic rule (always trace if the user is premium, if the model is the new one in canary, and so on).

Pros: cheap (the span is not generated at all), deterministic.

Cons: you can miss infrequent errors. If an error happens once in every 1,000 and you trace 1 %, you will see it once in every 100,000, which is no longer debuggable.

Tail-based sampling (on the way out)

The complete span is generated and at the end you decide whether to keep it or throw it away. The decision can be:

Keep 100 % of errors.
Keep 100 % of traces with latency > X ms.
Keep 100 % of traces that triggered a guardrail.
Keep a random sample of the rest (1-5 %).

Pros: it guarantees that you see the errors and the latency outliers. Without it, the most interesting problems are the ones most likely to be left out.

Cons: you need a buffer, because until the trace finishes you cannot decide. The Collector’s tail_sampling processor keeps the spans in memory for 5-30 seconds until it takes the decision.

The practical rule in 2026 is to combine both: head-based at 5 % + tail-based capturing 100 % of errors and latencies > 5s. That gives you around 5 % of baseline traffic plus 100 % of what is interesting.

Anatomy of a real trace

We are going to take apart the trace of a single user question to a typical chat-with-RAG-and-tool system. The question is “what is the balance of my main account?”.

Seven spans, one single trace. The information you can exploit:

Latency broken down: 38 ms guardrail + 218 ms retrieval + 2104 ms LLM + 60 ms tool + 28 ms guardrail = 2,448 ms (the rest is orchestration overhead). The bottleneck is the LLM (74 % of the time). If the user complains about slowness, you know where to look.
Tokens and cost: 1,247 input + 412 output. With Llama 3.1 70B on-prem at about 12 W/token of equivalent energy cost, roughly 3.5 c€ per response. Multiplied by volume, that gives you the inference bill.
prompt.id+version travelling along: if in a month’s time you notice that quality has dropped, you filter by prompt.version and see whether it coincides with a change to the prompt.
Guardrail decisions traced: if a guardrail blocked the response, it stays in the trace with gen_ai.guardrail.decision=block and a reason. ENS audit satisfied.
Correlated tool calls: tool.get_balance is a child span of gen_ai.chat. If the tool failed, you see the error directly in its span; it does not turn up only in separate logs.

Implications for on-premise hardware

Tracing is not free, but its overhead, properly sized, is negligible.

Cost per span

At the SDK level, an LLM span adds around 50-200 µs of overhead (creation, attributes, serialisation). For an LLM call lasting 2 seconds, that is < 0.01 % of the latency.

At the network level, a typical compressed OTLP span weighs around 1-3 KB. For a system at 100 req/s with 7 spans per request, that is 700 spans/s × 2 KB ≈ 1.4 MB/s to the Collector. Trivial.

Storage

This is where the money goes. Without sampling, a month at 100 req/s is about 18 GB of spans. With head-based at 5 % + tail-based on errors, about 1-2 GB a month. Manageable in any self-hosted ClickHouse or Loki.

On an RTX 4090 (24 GB) + Collector and Langfuse on-prem

For a demo service or a small single-tenant: Langfuse + Postgres + Clickhouse + Collector on the same host as the model. It uses around 8 GB of RAM and < 1 % of CPU continuously. The 4090 serves the model, the rest lives on the CPU. Minimum viable setup for a startup or a small team.

On a generic 4×H100 SXM cluster + central observability

A dedicated pod for the OTel Collector (a DaemonSet on each node + a central Gateway). Langfuse + ClickHouse + Tempo + Prometheus + Grafana in an observability namespace separate from the serving namespace. This is the canonical architecture of any serious ENS/NIS2 production deployment: observability does not share resources with the model.

What we have not covered (upcoming articles)

LLM metrics (Prometheus): the canonical counters and histograms — gen_ai_client_request_duration_seconds, gen_ai_client_input_tokens_total and the rest. How Grafana dashboards are built on that base.
Guardrails as spans: how to model Llama Guard 4, NeMo Guardrails and LLM Guard as child spans of the LLM span, and what attributes they carry. Covered in the post on guardrails — attributes gen_ai.guardrail.line, gen_ai.guardrail.detector, gen_ai.guardrail.category, gen_ai.guardrail.score, gen_ai.guardrail.action.
Distributed tracing with MCP — traceparent propagation from the LLM client to the MCP server, mcp.* attributes, known problems.
eBPF for automatic tracing without an SDK — Tetragon and Hubble extracting LLM traces without explicit instrumentation, for cases where the code cannot be modified.

References

OpenTelemetry GenAI Semantic Conventions: https://opentelemetry.io/docs/specs/semconv/gen-ai/.
OpenLLMetry (Traceloop): https://github.com/traceloop/openllmetry.
openinference (Arize): https://github.com/Arize-ai/openinference.
Langfuse OTel integration: https://langfuse.com/docs/opentelemetry/get-started.
OTel Collector tail-sampling processor: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/tree/main/processor/tailsamplingprocessor.
Phoenix (Arize) docs: https://docs.arize.com/phoenix.
Model Context Protocol observability (mcp.* semconv): https://modelcontextprotocol.io/docs/observability.

AgentSight and the new LLM tracing: zero-instrumentation with eBPF against Langfuse, LangSmith, Phoenix and company

Tue, 19 May 2026 18:00:00 +0200

TL;DR

Observing an LLM agent in production in 2026 splits into two approaches with opposite philosophies. The instrumented one, dominant until 2025, lives in tools such as Langfuse, LangSmith, Arize Phoenix, Helicone, OpenLLMetry/Traceloop or Pydantic Logfire: you install an SDK, decorate your calls, emit spans with the OpenTelemetry GenAI convention (gen_ai.request.model, gen_ai.usage.input_tokens, and so on) and export them to a backend. Enormous depth when you control the code; zero visibility when the agent is an opaque binary you run without instrumenting. The zero-instrumentation one, which AgentSight popularised in the second half of 2025, turns the perspective 180º: it puts eBPF hooks on the uprobes of the SSL/TLS libraries and captures the plaintext of every HTTPS request before encryption, without touching the app’s code, with less than 3% overhead and the guarantee of being tamper-proof (the agent cannot falsify what is seen in the kernel). Combined with BPF capture of stdio for local MCP servers, AgentSight gives you complete observability of any agent, including closed binaries such as Claude Code, Gemini CLI or Cursor, on a Kubernetes cluster. The two families are not enemies: the 2026 reference stack combines both (instrumented for your own apps with LangChain, eBPF for opaque binaries and tamper-proof compliance) over OpenTelemetry GenAI semantic conventions as the common vocabulary the ecosystem is stabilising this year.

This is the fourth and last post of the eBPF series. Part 1: eBPF from zero to Cilium. Part 2: Tetragon: runtime security. Part 3: Hubble: network observability. Here we close the circle with the semantic dimension: what an AI agent does, not only what network it opens or what syscalls it emits.

The analogy: traditional APM vs network sniffer

Anyone who has operated enterprise applications knows the two tribes of monitoring. The APM tribe (New Relic, AppDynamics, Datadog APM): you install an agent or an SDK in each application, mark spans, collect traces with enormous depth inside each process, down to lines of code, SQL queries, Java methods. The wire-level tribe (network sniffers, SolarWinds NPM-style tools, NetFlow): it does not touch the application; it observes the cable, sees protocols, latencies, retransmissions, identifies problems the app does not know it has.

Each one sees different things and both are useful. Anyone who has lived through a serious incident where APM said “all green” while users suffered knows that wire-level would have caught the problem (a saturated middlebox, a badly configured MTU, a TCP timeout). Anyone who has tried to debug a memory leak with sniffers knows it was impossible without APM.

LLM agent observability in 2026 is exactly at this point. The APM-style has been in place for a couple of years: Langfuse, LangSmith, Phoenix, OpenLLMetry. Enormous depth, requires instrumenting the app. The wire-level with eBPF has just arrived: AgentSight is the first project to take it to production. Less depth inside the agent, but it sees any agent without touching anything and it is tamper-proof. Both are useful. The industry is in full coexistence.

Why observing LLM agents is different

Before getting into tools, it is worth pausing on what makes LLM agents specific as subjects of observability:

Non-determinism. The same input can produce different outputs. Reproducing an incident requires capturing exactly the conversation, the model, the parameters and, ideally, the seed. An aggregate “p95 latency” metric falls short; what you need is replay of the individual trace.

A chain of external invocations. A typical agent calls LLM → tools (tool calling) → MCP servers → other APIs → back to the LLM. A chat session can generate dozens of chained calls that have to be correlated by trace_id to understand the decision.

Cost linear in tokens. Every call is paid for in tokens. Without tracing input/output tokens per request, you cannot assign cost to a tenant or a team, nor detect loops that eat your budget in an hour.

Semantic risk. Prompt injection (a user input containing instructions to manipulate the model), jailbreaks, secret leakage through tool calls. It is a class of problem that does not appear in traditional applications, and observability must see it.

Opaque binaries. In 2026, many teams deploy third-party agents such as Claude Code, the Cursor agent, Aider, Gemini CLI or Codex CLI as internal tools. They are not your own applications; they are closed binaries that call the vendor’s API. Instrumenting them is impossible. Observing them requires something else.

Multi-agent and orchestration. More and more architectures have agents that invoke other agents (planner → executor → critic). Observability must understand the topology, not just the individual span.

With these five points in mind, the tools we are about to see differ mainly in which parts of the problem they cover well and which parts they leave blind.

The instrumented approach: how it works

The model is direct and familiar:

Your code calls the LLM or the tools using an official library: openai, anthropic, langchain, llama_index, dspy.
You install a tracer SDK (Langfuse, LangSmith, OpenLLMetry, Logfire) that wraps or monkey-patches those libraries.
Each call emits an OpenTelemetry span with standardised attributes: model used, input/output tokens, latency, parameters, messages, tool invoked, result.
The spans are exported over OTLP to a backend that shows them as a tree of traces.

# Typical example with OpenLLMetry + any SDK
from traceloop.sdk import Traceloop
from openai import OpenAI

Traceloop.init(app_name="my-agent", api_endpoint="https://otel-collector:4318")

client = OpenAI()
# this call automatically emits a span with
# gen_ai.request.model, gen_ai.usage.input_tokens, etc.
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
 model="gpt-4.1",
 messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "..."}]
)

What you see afterwards: a dashboard with each conversation as a trace, each call as a span, the complete prompts and completions (if you opt in), the computed cost, latencies per span, errors flagged.

OpenTelemetry GenAI semantic conventions: the common vocabulary

The fragmentation of the field is being mitigated with OpenTelemetry GenAI Semantic Conventions. It is the CNCF’s effort to get all tools to emit spans with the same attribute names:

gen_ai.system — the provider (openai, anthropic, vertex_ai, and so on).
gen_ai.request.model — the model requested (gpt-4.1, claude-3-5-sonnet).
gen_ai.response.model — the model actually used (sometimes it differs, e.g. fallbacks).
gen_ai.usage.input_tokens and gen_ai.usage.output_tokens — counters.
gen_ai.request.temperature, gen_ai.request.top_p, and so on — parameters.
gen_ai.response.finish_reasons — why it ended (stop, length, content_filter).
gen_ai.operation.name — the type of operation (chat, embedding, completion).

In early 2026, the client spans moved from experimental to stable. The rest (server spans, multi-agent events) is still in development. The operational meaning: if your SDK emits these attributes, any backend that understands OTel GenAI can consume them. Moving from Langfuse to Phoenix to Helicone does not imply re-instrumenting, only changing the exporter.

The SIG is actively developing conventions for multi-agent systems: agent teams, tasks, actions, memory, artifact tracking. This is what is missing for complex agent architectures to have a common vocabulary. In 2026 it is experimental; stabilisation is expected at the end of the year or the start of 2027.

Instrumented tools: the 2026 landscape

Tool	Licence	Self-host	Focus	Where it shines
Langfuse	MIT	Yes	LLM observability + evals + prompt mgmt	Best OSS balance, complete suite
LangSmith	Commercial	No	Native LangChain/LangGraph	If you use LangChain, zero-config integration
Arize Phoenix	ELv2 (OSS)	Yes	OTel-native, strong RAG	Vector DBs, retrieval, embeddings
Helicone	Commercial + OSS lite	Yes (lite)	Simple proxy	Setup in minutes, OpenAI-only
OpenLLMetry / Traceloop	Apache 2.0	Yes	OTel SDK for LLMs	Vendor-neutral, exports to any OTel backend
Pydantic Logfire	Commercial	No	App + LLM unified	If you use Pydantic AI, native integration
Weights & Biases Weave	Commercial	Limited	Experimentation + production	If you already use W&B for training
Laminar / Braintrust	Commercial	No / Yes	Evals + tracing	More recent, focused on evaluation

Deep dive: Langfuse

It is worth pausing on Langfuse because in 2026 it is the default choice among the open-source options and the one most teams have adopted this year. It is a YC W23 project, MIT licence, and keeps a sustained release cadence with serious architectural changes between versions.

Four declared pillars: observability (tracing), evaluations, prompt management, playground/datasets. Each one separately has complete commercial products behind it; Langfuse integrates them into a single platform with a single backend.

SDK v4: OTEL-native, not a replacement

The big recent operational change is the SDK v4, a thin layer over the official OpenTelemetry client. The choice is deliberate: instead of maintaining a client of its own that would fall behind the OTel primitives, Langfuse uses the standard SDK and enriches the spans with LLM-specific attributes and helpers. The consequence: any code already instrumented with vanilla OpenTelemetry (@opentelemetry/sdk-node, opentelemetry-sdk in Python) can export to Langfuse without major changes, and the other way round, if tomorrow you want to migrate from Langfuse to another OTel backend, the spans are portable.

In Python the idiomatic decorator is @observe:

from langfuse import observe, get_client

langfuse = get_client()

@observe()
def buscar_documentos(query: str):
 # any internal call is traced as well
 return vector_store.similarity_search(query)

@observe(as_type="generation")
def llamar_llm(prompt: str):
 # marked as "generation" so it appears with LLM metadata
 return openai_client.chat.completions.create(...)

@observe()
def pipeline_rag(pregunta: str):
 docs = buscar_documentos(pregunta)
 return llamar_llm(build_prompt(pregunta, docs))

The call tree is captured automatically: the trace shows pipeline_rag as the root span, with buscar_documentos and llamar_llm as children, nested. Without writing a single with tracer.start_as_current_span(...) by hand.

In TypeScript the equivalent is modular: you install @langfuse/tracing, @langfuse/otel and @opentelemetry/sdk-node, and you can use TS decorators, context managers or manual spans, the three models interoperate. The consequence: third-party libraries that emit OTel spans (openai, @anthropic-ai/sdk, Vercel AI SDK instrumentations) show up in Langfuse with no extra work.

Self-host architecture: designed for serious production

The Langfuse backend architecture has two explicit decisions that set its self-host deployment apart:

Persistence in S3/Blob Storage first. When a tracing event arrives, it is persisted in object storage before touching the database. Only when the later processing confirms OK is it inserted into Postgres/Clickhouse. If the DB goes down temporarily, the events are not lost; they stay in S3 waiting to be reprocessed. For production where losing the traces of an incident is equivalent to losing evidence, this is load-bearing.
Long migrations as background jobs. Schema upgrades that on other platforms mean a downtime window run in the background on Langfuse while the application keeps serving. Upgrade downtime drops drastically.

The officially supported deployment modes:

Docker Compose: for development and POCs. One command, everything up.
VM: a single node, containers, no orchestration. For small environments.
Kubernetes with Helm: the recommended mode for production. Official chart maintained. Supports external Postgres, external Clickhouse, external S3, HPA.

The external dependencies in a typical production setup: Postgres (metadata, prompts, configuration), Clickhouse (tracing events, high-cardinality queries), S3 or a compatible blob store (pending events), Redis (the queue between components). Yes, that is several pieces; it is what holds up the durability and the scale.

Prompt management as a first-class citizen

What sets Langfuse apart from platforms focused only on tracing is that the prompts live in Langfuse, not in the application repo or in spreadsheets. Each prompt has:

Name and version (v1, v2, v3…). Changing the prompt does not require redeploying the app: the app asks the SDK for the prompt, and the SDK caches it and refreshes when there is a new version.
Typed variables: {{user_input}}, {{context}}. Rendering with validation.
Tags and labels: by environment (production, staging), by team, by experiment.
Client and server cache: the SDK caches locally with a configurable TTL, avoiding a roundtrip to Langfuse on every call.
Linkage with traces: each trace records which exact version of which prompt was used. Investigating “this answer came out wrong” leads to prompt version Y, not to “some version of the prompt at some point”.

from langfuse import get_client

langfuse = get_client()

prompt = langfuse.get_prompt("rag-system-prompt", version=3)
# or by label: langfuse.get_prompt("rag-system-prompt", label="production")

compiled = prompt.compile(context=docs_text, user_input=question)
# 'compiled' is the final string, ready to send to the LLM

For teams iterating on prompts daily, this is what avoids the chaos of “which version of the prompt is actually running in production right now”.

Evaluations: four combinable evaluation models

Langfuse covers the four patterns of answer evaluation:

LLM-as-a-judge: you configure a model (typically GPT-4 or Claude) with a rubric and it evaluates each answer. Result: a numeric score (0-1) and a justification. Applicable to automatic tracing (all answers) or batch (a dataset selection).
User feedback: the app lets the user mark an answer as good/bad. The feedback is associated with the trace and the prompt version, which lets you see which versions have a worse rate.
Manual labeling: a UI where human labelers score answers. Useful for golden datasets and for evaluating the judge.
Custom evaluators through the API/SDK: your own evals (a unit test, a business metric) report a score through the API. They integrate with CI.

Combined, they give regression testing of the prompt: you change from v3 to v4, evaluate the golden dataset with LLM-as-judge, compare; if v4 gets worse in any of the segments, the merge fails.

Integrations

Langfuse does not compete with OpenLLMetry, LangChain or LiteLLM: it integrates them. The ones that are tested and documented:

OpenTelemetry: any OTel instrumentation emits to Langfuse over OTLP.
LangChain and LangGraph: a native callback that captures the whole chain.
LlamaIndex: native callback.
OpenAI SDK (Python and TS): a wrapper that adds tracing automatically.
LiteLLM: integration as a callback, which covers 100+ providers through LiteLLM.
OpenLLMetry / Traceloop: they emit to Langfuse like any OTel backend.
MLflow: through an OTel exporter from MLflow to Langfuse.
Vercel AI SDK: native instrumentation.

The strategy is clear: Langfuse is a backend, not an SDK. Your team chooses how it instruments; Langfuse accepts any path. The operational consequence: moving from Langfuse to another OTel backend tomorrow is viable.

When Langfuse is not the answer

So as not to present it as a silver bullet:

If you only use LangChain and have no resources to self-host: LangSmith will give you a smoother integration (it is the same team).
If your only need is a proxy with cost tracking and no evals: Helicone is simpler.
If you want an integrated commercial vendor solution: Datadog LLM Observability, New Relic AI Monitoring or Dynatrace AI are Enterprise alternatives with 24/7 support.
If your load is pure batch massive inference with no agents: you probably do not need semantic tracing; Prometheus + Grafana with OTel metrics is enough.

For everything else, your own apps with serious tracing, multi-tenant with quotas, teams iterating on prompts daily, RAG with continuous evaluation, Langfuse is the safe bet.

Quick choice summary:

LangChain → LangSmith (zero effort, automatic instrumentation).
Your own multi-framework applications with OSS → Langfuse (MIT, self-host, complete).
RAG with vector stores → Arize Phoenix (better retrieval visibility).
Simple proxy, low budget → Helicone.
Strict vendor neutrality → OpenLLMetry/Traceloop.
Pydantic AI → Logfire (same team).

Strengths and weaknesses of the instrumented model

Strengths:

Enormous depth: nested spans with all the context (chain steps, retrieval, embeddings, tool calls).
Semantic vocabulary: the SDK knows the domain (LLM, vector store, agent).
Maturity: three years of evolution, a rich ecosystem, ready-made dashboards.
Built-in evals: the top platforms combine tracing with evaluation (judge LLM, datasets, regression).

Weaknesses:

Requires control of the code: if you cannot instrument, it does not work.
Trust in the app: if the app reports badly or has a bug, so does the trace. It is not tamper-proof.
Coupling to the SDK: version changes in a library can break the instrumentation.
Uneven coverage: Python SDKs are mature; Go, Rust and JS are younger.

The zero-instrumentation approach: AgentSight

AgentSight is the project from the eunomia-bpf group that champions the opposite approach. Its paper on arxiv (2508.02736), presented at the Workshop on Practical Adoption Challenges of ML for Systems, formalises the proposal. The premise is direct:

Instead of instrumenting the agent, observe it at the system boundary.

And “system boundary” means the kernel boundary: the last point before a piece of data leaves the process towards the network or the filesystem. There, with eBPF, things are seen as they are, without the application being able to cooperate in hiding them.

Architecture: three planes

AgentSight assembles three layers:

Plane 1 — SSL/TLS uprobes. eBPF can attach programs to functions in userspace libraries (uprobes). The target functions are the encryption ones: SSL_write, SSL_read from OpenSSL/BoringSSL, and their equivalents in Rustls. AgentSight puts hooks on them that capture the arguments: the plaintext buffer the app passes to be encrypted, just before TLS processes it. On reception it does the symmetric thing: a hook after SSL_read with the freshly decrypted plaintext. Result: AgentSight sees the complete content of any HTTPS request the app makes without needing a man-in-the-middle, certificates or traffic decryption. The payload is plaintext because it was captured before being encrypted.

This works because uprobes are cheap (around 100 ns per invocation) and because apps use common TLS libraries. The few apps that implement their own TLS (rare in production) escape this hook; for those you need a different kprobe or manual instrumentation.

Plane 2 — Kernel events. In parallel, AgentSight observes relevant syscalls through tracepoints: execve (which processes start), connect/accept (network), read/write with file descriptors (filesystem and stdio), unlink, clone. Any action by the agent that has an effect outside the process passes through here. This covers, among other things, shell commands executed by the agent: if a Claude Code agent decides to run rm -rf to “clean up the project”, the execve is seen even if the LLM API does not report it.

Plane 3 — Correlation engine. The two previous planes produce streams of asynchronous events. AgentSight has a userspace component that correlates them causally cross-process: an outgoing HTTP request with bash -c rm -rf can be correlated with the previous LLM response that suggested it, through PIDs, timings and heuristics. The paper mentions the optional use of a secondary LLM (Anthropic Claude, for instance) that analyses the sequence of events and produces semantic alerts: “the agent responded with a tool call that was not in the whitelist”, “the reasoning chain has gone 47 iterations without converging”.

`stdiocap`: capturing the stdio of local MCP servers

One specific piece that deserves its own mention is stdiocap, a separate BPF tool included in the repo. The Model Context Protocol (MCP), popularised by Anthropic in 2024 and mainstream in 2025-2026, has two transport modes: HTTP/SSE (network) and stdio (between the client and the server it starts as a subprocess). Local MCP servers, the ones that run on the same machine and are started by the client as children over pipes, communicate through stdin/stdout/stderr with JSON-RPC.

stdiocap hooks read/write/dup on the stdin/stdout/stderr file descriptors of a target process and records all the JSON-RPC traffic between the MCP client and server. It is the same idea as the SSL capture but for stdio: you observe the conversation without either the client or the server knowing. Typical use case: seeing which tools of the filesystem-mcp MCP server a Claude Code agent has invoked in the last hour, what arguments it passed, what errors it received. Impossible with classic instrumentation (MCP servers are usually third-party binaries).

Guarantees: tamper-proof, kernel safety, <3% overhead

Three properties make AgentSight interesting for production:

Tamper-proof: the observation happens in the kernel (uprobes, syscalls). A malicious or compromised application cannot falsify what is seen. Compare with instrumentation: if the agent decides not to emit the span for its action, it does not appear in Langfuse. Here it has no choice.
Kernel safety: eBPF formally verifies that programs terminate and respect bounds checks. It cannot crash the kernel. The same as in the rest of the eBPF series.
<3% CPU overhead measured on real agent workloads (per the paper). The number compares favourably with SDK instrumentation, which typically adds 5-10% in intensive applications.

What it detects out of the box

The paper and the documentation highlight three classes of detection:

Real-time prompt injection: the correlation engine can apply rules or a detection model over the plaintext captured by the SSL uprobes. If the prompt contains suspicious patterns, “ignore all previous instructions”, a system prompt embedded in a user input, instructions to exfiltrate data, it raises an alert.
Reasoning loops that burn resources: agents that enter infinite loops calling tools without progressing. Detectable because the causal chain does not converge to a “final answer” and the tokens pile up. The correlation engine flags them.
Bottlenecks in multi-agent setups: when several agents coordinate, AgentSight sees the communication matrix between all of them and can detect agents that block while waiting, deadlocks, excessive fan-out.

The clash and the coexistence

The two families look like competitors, but in reality they see different things and complement each other in production.

What only the instrumented one sees

Internal agent variables that never reach the wire: the intermediate state of a LangChain chain, the values before passing them to a tool, how a prompt is built from a template with internal vars.
Deep semantic spans: retrieval > embed > vector_search > rerank > format_context > prompt_template > llm. AgentSight sees only the final call to the LLM; the path taken to build it is invisible.
Evaluations: scoring of answers, judge LLMs, quality regression. This lives only in instrumented platforms.

What only eBPF sees

Opaque binaries: Claude Code, Cursor, Gemini CLI, third-party agents. You do not have the code; you cannot instrument them. Only eBPF sees them.
System-level actions: the agent decides to run git push --force or kubectl delete. The action is seen in the execve. The agent’s instrumentation may not report it (especially if it was a command the agent generated as output without going through an explicit “tool”).
Tamper-proof audit: for regulatory compliance (HIPAA, SOC2, NIS2), having observation the app cannot dodge has formal value. eBPF provides it.
Local MCP servers over stdio: invisible to classic instrumentation unless each server emits its own spans (rare).

What both see, complementarily

Prompts and completions: the instrumented approach emits them with rich metadata; eBPF captures them off the wire. A perfect cross-check for spotting discrepancies.
Calls to external APIs: APM flags it; eBPF confirms it at kernel level.
Latency: APM per span; eBPF measures RTT at TCP level and network connectivity.

Decision matrix

Case	Instrumented	eBPF (AgentSight)
Your own app with LangChain	Yes, first	Optional
Your own multi-framework app	Yes	Optional
Third-party binary (Claude Code, Cursor)	Does not work	Yes, the only path
Tamper-proof regulatory compliance	Insufficient	Yes, required
Zero-trust multi-tenant	Insufficient	Yes, required
Local MCP servers (stdio)	Difficult	Yes, with stdiocap
Answer quality evaluation	Yes, required	No (out of scope)
Depth of the internal chain	Yes, required	No (a black box for AgentSight)
Reasoning loop detection	Possible with plumbing	Yes, built in
Real-time prompt injection	Possible (post-processed)	Yes, in stream

The natural conclusion: for your own apps, instrumented; for opaque binaries or compliance, eBPF; for everything that matters, both.

2026 reference architecture

Four recipes that cover the bulk of real cases:

Setup A — Your own application with LangChain or similar

Needs: depth, evals, a team comfortable with SDKs.

Langfuse self-host or LangSmith cloud as the backend.
OpenLLMetry SDK or LangSmith SDK instrumenting the code.
OpenTelemetry Collector between the app and the backend for routing flexibility (to Langfuse + Tempo + Loki, for instance).
Hubble for the network layer in the cluster (inter-pod latency, drop attribution).

Setup B — Productionising an opaque binary (Claude Code, Gemini CLI)

Needs: observe without touching, audit, control cost.

AgentSight deployed as a DaemonSet over the cluster (or standalone on the node).
Grafana with dashboards fed by AgentSight’s metrics.
An OTLP exporter from AgentSight to an OTel backend (Tempo, Jaeger). The spans will use the GenAI semantic conventions once they are fully standardised.
Tetragon optionally for policy over what the agent is allowed to run (Sigkill if it tries rm -rf or similar).

Setup C — Zero-trust multi-tenant platform

Needs: agents from different clients running on the same cluster, mandatory audit, nobody trusts anybody.

AgentSight as the tamper-proof audit layer. Compliance requires it.
Langfuse multi-tenant for the clients that do instrument.
Tetragon with TracingPolicyNamespaced per tenant (different policies per namespace).
Hubble with persistent flow logs for forensics.
Cilium NetworkPolicy to isolate tenants from each other on the network.

Setup D — A local MCP server on a workstation

Needs: seeing what an agent does with a stdio MCP server.

AgentSight stdiocap pointed at the PID of the client or the server.
Complete JSON-RPC capture to a file or to an OTLP endpoint.
Visualisation: Grafana, or simply jq over the log.

A real use case: if you are integrating an MCP server of your own and want to see what tool calls a Claude Code or Cursor agent makes to your server, stdiocap is the cleanest way. You need to modify neither client nor server.

Operational traps

Sensitive data in prompts (instrumented)

By default, Langfuse, LangSmith and similar tools capture the complete content of prompts and completions. If your app processes PII, secrets or medical data, that goes to your observability backend. Configuring redaction or content opt-out before going to production is mandatory. OTel GenAI has specific flags (OTEL_INSTRUMENTATION_GENAI_CAPTURE_MESSAGE_CONTENT=false) to avoid it.

Sensitive data in prompts (AgentSight)

The same problem, worse: AgentSight captures literally what goes to the wire, in plaintext. If the agent talked to api.openai.com with a prompt containing sensitive data, AgentSight has that plaintext. You have to encrypt or redact before storing.

Pinned certificates or non-standard TLS

Some high-security apps do certificate pinning or use unconventional TLS implementations (Go’s crypto/tls, custom BoringSSL). In those cases, the uprobes on libssl do not cover them. AgentSight detects when it cannot observe and reports the gap; you still have to add specific hooks for the alternative SDK.

Token volume and storage

An application with medium traffic can generate millions of tokens a day. If you store them all in Langfuse or Phoenix with long retention, the database grows fast. Strategies: aggressive sampling, short retention for normal sessions and long retention only for errors/anomalies, content redaction and keeping only metadata.

Tracing with sampling and consistency

To cut cost, many installations sample: only 1 in every N traces is persisted. Be careful with inconsistent sampling: a trace can carry several spans across multiple services, and if the sampling decision is taken per span, you end up with incomplete traces. OTel has head sampling (in the SDK, at the start), which is consistent, and tail sampling (in the collector, at the end), which allows finer rules. For LLM, tail sampling is ideal: sample everything, discard only the “normal” traces and keep the ones with errors, high latency or high cost.

Multi-agent and trace propagation

When agent A calls agent B, you have to propagate the trace context (W3C Trace Context headers) so it shows up as a single tree. If you do not, you see two disconnected traces. Modern platforms do it automatically with inject/extract, but if your transport between agents is custom (over Redis pub/sub, over a DB), you have to propagate by hand.

The cost of uprobes on critical libraries

Hooking libssl adds around 100 ns per invocation. On extreme TLS traffic loads (tens of thousands of connections/s per core), that adds up. AgentSight keeps it under 3% on typical agent workloads (which are chatty but not networking-intensive). If your use were sniffing all the HTTPS on the node, it could hurt more.

What we have not covered (next series)

Evals: the next layer after tracing. Phoenix, Langfuse, LangSmith and company offer answer evaluation (judge LLM, datasets, regression). It is a world of its own.
Guardrails and safety: NeMo Guardrails, Llama Guard, Llama Prompt Guard, evaluators specific to prompt injection and jailbreaks.
Deep MCP server observability: how the OpenTelemetry GenAI conventions are being extended to MCP servers for trace-aware tools.
eBPF + on-device inference: when the LLM runs locally through vLLM or llama.cpp, the uprobes can see the output token queue BEFORE it goes to the client. New territory.
Statistical analysis of agent flows: detecting drift, outliers, patterns that indicate degradation.

Closing the eBPF series

This series of four articles has travelled eBPF from first principles to the 2026 frontier:

eBPF from zero to Cilium — what eBPF is, networking hooks, how Cilium skips the TCP/IP stack, BGP Control Plane v2.
Tetragon: runtime security — observability and enforcement of processes in the kernel.
Hubble: network observability — L3-L7 flow logs and the frontier with AI agents.
This one — AgentSight, LLM tracing, instrumented vs zero-instrumentation.

If you have got this far you have the map to sit down with a platform, security or AI team in 2026 and recognise what each piece does, what problem it solves and where to start. That whole stack, Cilium for CNI and BGP, Tetragon for runtime security, Hubble for network observability, AgentSight for AI agents, sharing eBPF as a common substrate, Cloud Native governance and OpenTelemetry vocabulary. It is the clean architecture the industry asked for a decade ago and that finally exists.

References

AgentSight:

AgentSight GitHub (eunomia-bpf) — the project.
AgentSight: System-Level Observability for AI Agents Using eBPF (arxiv 2508.02736) — the formal paper.
AgentSight ACM workshop publication.
AgentSight blog post (eunomia.dev) — accessible description.

OpenTelemetry GenAI semantic conventions:

Instrumented platforms:

Langfuse — MIT, self-host + cloud.
LangSmith — LangChain team.
Arize Phoenix — OSS, OTel-native.
Helicone — simple proxy.
OpenLLMetry (Traceloop) — Apache 2.0, OTel SDK.
Pydantic Logfire — AI observability.

2026 comparisons:

Cross-references from the series:

eBPF from zero to Cilium.
Tetragon: runtime security.
Hubble: network observability.
LLM inference series: KV cache, vLLM on Kubernetes, PagedAttention, LLM Operators on K8s.

Tracing on lo0 — Tech Blog

LLM tracing with OpenTelemetry GenAI: the aircraft black box the field stabilised in 2026

TL;DR

You are here: OBSERVE

The analogy: the aircraft black box

Why OTel GenAI exists (and why it won)

The canonical gen_ai.* attributes

The canonical pipeline: SDK → Collector → backends

1 · The SDK

2 · The OTel Collector

3 · The backends

Sampling: the two layers that coexist

Head-based sampling (on the way in)

Tail-based sampling (on the way out)

Anatomy of a real trace

Implications for on-premise hardware

Cost per span

Storage

On an RTX 4090 (24 GB) + Collector and Langfuse on-prem

On a generic 4×H100 SXM cluster + central observability

What we have not covered (upcoming articles)

See also

References

AgentSight and the new LLM tracing: zero-instrumentation with eBPF against Langfuse, LangSmith, Phoenix and company

TL;DR

The analogy: traditional APM vs network sniffer

Why observing LLM agents is different

The instrumented approach: how it works

OpenTelemetry GenAI semantic conventions: the common vocabulary

Instrumented tools: the 2026 landscape

Deep dive: Langfuse

SDK v4: OTEL-native, not a replacement

Self-host architecture: designed for serious production

Prompt management as a first-class citizen

Evaluations: four combinable evaluation models

Integrations

When Langfuse is not the answer

Strengths and weaknesses of the instrumented model

The zero-instrumentation approach: AgentSight

Architecture: three planes

stdiocap: capturing the stdio of local MCP servers

Guarantees: tamper-proof, kernel safety, <3% overhead

What it detects out of the box

The clash and the coexistence

What only the instrumented one sees

What only eBPF sees

What both see, complementarily

Decision matrix

2026 reference architecture

Setup A — Your own application with LangChain or similar

Setup B — Productionising an opaque binary (Claude Code, Gemini CLI)

Setup C — Zero-trust multi-tenant platform

Setup D — A local MCP server on a workstation

Operational traps

Sensitive data in prompts (instrumented)

Sensitive data in prompts (AgentSight)

Pinned certificates or non-standard TLS

Token volume and storage

Tracing with sampling and consistency

Multi-agent and trace propagation

The cost of uprobes on critical libraries

What we have not covered (next series)

Closing the eBPF series

References

The canonical `gen_ai.*` attributes

`stdiocap`: capturing the stdio of local MCP servers