My team and I had been working on Veltrix, an ambitious real-time data processing engine, for over a year. We'd finally reached the point where our system was ready for production. Or so we thought.
The Problem We Were Actually Solving
Deep in the application code, a configuration layer determined how our server handled incoming requests. The goal was to scale our engine cleanly as the load increased. In other words, we wanted our server to keep up with the demands of our users without stalling at the first growth inflection point.
However, as we deployed Veltrix to our first production environment, we quickly realized that our configuration layer was not as robust as we had hoped. In fact, it was broken in ways we couldn't even begin to diagnose.
We spent countless hours trying to troubleshoot the issue, running test after test, and tweaking configuration settings without making any significant progress. We deployed multiple patch releases, but each one seemed to introduce new problems.
What We Tried First (And Why It Failed)
Our initial approach was to add more logging to help us understand what was happening when the system failed to scale. We increased logging levels, added custom metrics, and even used a profiling tool to identify bottlenecks. However, as the logs and metrics piled up, we began to realize that our problem wasn't so much with the system's performance as it was with the configuration layer itself.
The logging and metrics were telling us that our engine was consistently running into memory issues when pushed to high loads. But whenever we tried to tweak the configuration, we'd either break existing functionality or create new problems elsewhere in the system.
The Architecture Decision
It was then that we decided to make a fundamental change. We abandoned our current configuration layer and replaced it with a new one based on Rust's anyhow crate. This crate allowed us to model our configuration as a data structure, rather than a set of ad-hoc key-value pairs.
We also introduced a new abstraction layer between our engine and the configuration layer, allowing us to decouple the two and make our engine more flexible. This change wasn't without its risks, however – it meant that we'd have to rewrite a significant portion of our codebase to accommodate the new configuration layer.
What The Numbers Said After
After deploying the new configuration layer, we began to see a marked improvement in our system's performance. MemAlloc metrics showed a significant decrease in heap allocations, and CPU usage remained stable even under high loads.
But it was the latency numbers that really told the story. Before the change, our average response time had hovered around 250ms. After the change, it dropped to around 120ms, with spikes of up to 500ms during peak hours.
What I Would Do Differently
If I'm being completely honest, there are a few things I would do differently if I had to tackle this problem again. For one, I would have explored more options for our configuration layer earlier on. The eventual switch to anyhow was a bit of a Hail Mary, and while it paid off, it was far from a straightforward solution.
I would also consider implementing some form of automated testing for our configuration layer. While we had developed a robust testing suite for our engine, we had largely neglected the configuration layer in our testing efforts. This meant that we were often flying blind when it came to determining the root cause of problems.
Finally, I would have done more to decouple our engine from our configuration layer earlier on. This would have made the eventual switch to the new configuration layer far less complicated and painful.
Top comments (0)