In our previous post, Queue Growth, Dead Letter Queues, and Why Asynchronous Failures Are Easy to Misread, we described a failure pattern that plays out repeatedly in modern systems built on asynchronous messaging.
A queue starts to grow slowly. Nothing looks obviously broken at first. Publish calls are succeeding and consumers are still running, just not quite keeping up. Over time, messages begin to age out, and dead-letter queues start accumulating entries. Downstream services that depend on those messages begin to behave unpredictably. There are partial data, delayed processing and subtle customer-facing issues that are hard to tie back to a single event. By the time the impact is visible in latency or error rates elsewhere in the system, the original cause is buried several layers upstream and hours in the past.
Teams do not miss these failures because they lack data. They miss them because the signals do not point clearly to the cause.
Over the past several weeks, we’ve expanded Causely’s asynchronous and messaging queue capabilities to make these failures explicit, explainable, and actionable. This includes:
- Expanding Causal Model for Amazon SNS and SQS and RabbitMQ
- A new Producer Publish Rate Spike root cause
- And adding Queue Size Growth and Dead-letter Queue as first class symptoms to our model
Reliability Blind Spot in Messaging-Driven Architectures
Asynchronous communication is foundational to how modern systems scale. The same advantages systems like Kafka and RabbitMQ provide, decoupling services and absorbing traffic spikes, also introduce new reliability challenges.
The core issue is not that these systems fail quietly, but that cause and effect are separated. A producer can overload the system without returning errors. A broker can continue accepting traffic while consumers fall behind. By the time downstream symptoms appear, the triggering behavior has often already passed.
For engineering managers and or those on the frontline of the on-call slack channel, this creates a familiar and frustrating dynamic. Reliability degrades without a clear trigger. Incident response turns into a debate about whether the producer or consumer is responsible. Teams chase anomalies across dashboards while backlogs continue to grow. By the time a decisive action is taken, the customer impact is already real.
Why Traditional Observability Falls Short
Metrics, logs, and traces are excellent at answering local questions. They tell you what a service is doing, how long an operation took, or how many messages are currently sitting in a queue.
What they do not provide is causal understanding across asynchronous boundaries.
In messaging-driven systems, cause and effect are separated in time and space. A spike in publish rate from one service may not create visible impact until hours later, in a different service, owned by a different team. A slow consumer may be the result of downstream backpressure rather than a defect in the consumer itself. Dead-letter queues tell you that messages failed, but not why the system reached that state.
Without a causal model of how producers, exchanges, queues, and consumers interact, teams are forced to infer failures indirectly. That inference is slow, fragile, and heavily dependent on tribal knowledge. Under pressure, it leads to overcorrection, unnecessary rollbacks, and missed root causes.
Expanding the Causal Model for Messaging Systems
To close this gap, we have significantly expanded Causely’s causal model for asynchronous messaging systems.
Rather than treating queues as opaque buffers, Causely now models messaging infrastructure the way it actually operates in production. Producers, exchanges, queues, and consumers are represented as distinct entities with explicit relationships and data flows. This applies across common technologies, including Amazon SQS, Amazon SNS, and RabbitMQ, whether used in simple queue mode or exchange-based pub/sub patterns.
By modeling the topology directly, Causely can reason about how work enters the system, how it is routed, where it accumulates, and how pressure propagates across services. This makes it possible to explain failures that previously required intuition and guesswork.
Causely Dataflow Map makes it easy for engineers to understand how data moves between services and exchanges and queues that make up Amazon SQS and SNS and RabbitMQ
Making Queue Growth and Dead-Letter Failures First-Class Signals
We have also expanded the causal model to treat queue size growth and dead-letter queue activity as first-class symptoms, not secondary indicators.
This changes how asynchronous failures are diagnosed. Instead of surfacing queue metrics as passive signals, Causely reasons about them causally, linking backlog growth and dead-letter events directly to the producers, consumers, and operations involved.
As a result, queue-related failures are no longer inferred indirectly from downstream latency or error spikes. The failure mode is explicit, explainable, and traceable to the point where intervention is most effective.
A New Root Cause: Producer Publish Rate Spike
One of the most common and least understood asynchronous failure modes is a sudden change in publish behavior. Causely now includes a dedicated root cause for this pattern: Producer Publish Rate Spike.
This occurs when a service, HTTP path, or RPC method begins publishing messages at a significantly higher rate than normal. The increase may be triggered by a code change, a configuration update, or an unexpected shift in traffic patterns. Downstream queues absorb the initial surge, but consumers cannot keep up indefinitely. Queue depth grows, message age increases, and backpressure begins to affect the rest of the system.
What makes this failure particularly dangerous is that the producer often looks healthy. Publish requests succeed, error rates remain low, and nothing appears obviously wrong at the source. Without causal reasoning, teams frequently blame consumers or infrastructure capacity, missing the true trigger entirely.
Causely now detects this condition explicitly. It ties unexpected increases in publish rate to queue growth, consumer pressure, and downstream service degradation, making the failure both visible and explainable.
Understanding the cause of increased queue depths , causing performance degradation
What This Changes for Reliability Teams
For teams responsible for revenue-critical services, these capabilities change how asynchronous failures are handled in practice.
Instead of reacting after queues are saturated and customers are impacted, teams can see which producer initiated the failure, how pressure propagated through the messaging system, and where intervention will have the greatest effect. Slow consumers, misconfigured routing, and unexpected publish spikes are distinguished clearly rather than conflated into a single “queue issue.”
This shortens incident response, reduces unnecessary mitigation, and eliminates the finger-pointing that often arises when failures span multiple teams. More importantly, it enables a proactive reliability posture in systems that are constantly changing.
Asynchronous Reliability Without Guesswork
Asynchronous architectures are essential for scale, but they demand a different approach to reliability than synchronous request paths.
With its expanded messaging and asynchronous causal model, Causely provides deterministic, explainable reasoning over how data flows through your system. Teams do not need to stitch together dashboards to reconstruct timelines after the fact. They do not need to trust black-box AI summaries that cannot explain their conclusions. They no longer have to exhaustively eliminate possibilities to arrive at a root cause.
Instead, they get clear answers to the questions that matter most: what is breaking, why it is breaking, and where to act first to protect reliability and revenue.
Top comments (0)