Tempo query availability is pulling against proof that tenant isolation still holds.
Keeping investigators supplied with trace data protects active response while broad containment protects customer data boundaries.
Who you’d be doing this for
“My incident commander is asking for traces now, and security is asking whether any of them crossed boundaries.”
Stellan Jensen · Principal Site Reliability Engineer
Leads incident response for a regulated customer using Tempo traces to isolate failures in a distributed service.
What is at stake
Two sampled queries suggest trace attributes may have crossed tenant boundaries. You must weigh broad containment against the loss of trace visibility during active customer incidents.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- tenant isolation vs incident investigation continuity
- rapid containment vs verified blast radius
- automated evidence vs defensible findings
- broad suppression vs high-SLA availability
Why Grafana
Tempo provides the traces high-SLA customers depend on to investigate distributed incidents across cloud regions.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 24 more at Grafana, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.