You start your computer, open your IDE, ready to implement the order flow in your microservices. In your mind, you still have a clear picture of what you read about the Saga Pattern:
“Oh, easy. Each service handles its own transaction, if it fails, just rollback using a compensate. Eventual consistency? No problem, Saga’s got it covered.”
Sounds neat, sounds simple… but when you actually start coding, you realize nothing is that smooth.
You imagine the ideal flow in your head:
- Order Service creates an order.
- Payment Service deducts money.
- Inventory Service reduces stock.
- Shipping Service creates a shipment.
In the books, if any step fails → compensate → everything returns to the original state, the system is perfect. In your mind, it’s a smooth dance.
But in reality… it’s a completely different dance. A network timeout, a duplicate event, or an imperfect compensate, and the dance quickly becomes… an operational nightmare.
1. Partial Failure – The First Shock
You imagine: Payment Service successfully deducts money, but Order Service hasn’t received the event due to a network timeout.
Result? The customer lost money, but the order hasn’t been created. You try retrying, but it gets worse: duplicate events → money deducted twice, wrong stock reduction, double shipment.
Partial failure and duplicate events are not exceptions, they are the reality in microservices.
You realize: if partial failures are already complex, can rollback and compensate really save the day?
2. Compensate – When Rollback Is Never Perfect
Books teach: rollback is just calling a compensate function → everything returns to the original state.
Reality:
- Email already sent → can’t undo.
- Shipment label created → can’t reverse.
- Third-party booking → rollback almost impossible.
Example: a service sends a payment confirmation SMS. If the transaction fails, you can’t “take back” the SMS. Compensate only makes up with another action, like sending a cancellation notice or issuing a credit.
Saga is not magic. Compensate is only approximate, sometimes requiring manual intervention.
But the story doesn’t stop there. If states aren’t synchronized, what does the customer see? This is when Eventual Consistency comes into play.
3. Eventual Consistency – The Inevitable Trade-Off
Data will eventually be consistent, but customers might see: “Processing…” while money is deducted, but order isn’t created.
You realize:
- UX must hide temporary states.
- The system needs monitoring, retries, reconciliation.
- Alerts must be clear.
Eventual consistency isn’t free. It requires accepting temporary risk. Otherwise, you’ll face a flood of support tickets from customers.
While calculating UX, a question arises: should the flow be managed by a central “director” or let services handle themselves? This is when Orchestration vs. Choreography appears.
4. Orchestration or Choreography – A Painful Choice
You must choose:
| Criteria | Orchestration | Choreography |
|---|---|---|
| Debug & Monitoring | Easy to track Saga states | Hard to debug, needs detailed logging |
| Single Point of Failure | Has orchestrator | No SPoF, distributed |
| Duplicate Event | Easy to control | Likely, requires idempotency & retry queue |
| Flexibility | Fixed flow, less flexible | Flexible when adding/removing services |
| Deployment & Scaling | Orchestrator requires special scaling | Each service can scale independently |
Example: you want to add a service to send promotional vouchers after order completion.
- Orchestration: update orchestrator flow, easy to control.
- Choreography: add a listener for the event, but must ensure idempotency and retry queue; errors arise if events are delayed or duplicated.
You realize: there is no perfect choice. Easier debug or avoid SPoF? Accept temporary inconsistency or strict consistency? Saga isn’t just a technique – it’s a constant trade-off.
And when you consider it, a red warning flashes: Saga won’t always save the day, especially in systems requiring strong consistency.
5. Saga Is Not a Solution for Every Case
Imagine: a bank, transferring money between two accounts. You decide to use Saga: deduct money from A, add to B, log the transaction.
At first, you are confident: any step fails → compensate → all good.
Then disaster strikes. Payment Service deducted the money, but Ledger Service hasn’t received the event. Customers panic, support is busy. Compensate? Doesn’t help. Only manual intervention can save it.
Now you understand: Saga is not suitable for banking transactions. A safer solution: 2-Phase Commit (2PC).
- 2PC ensures strong consistency: commit synchronously, fail → rollback immediately.
- Avoids dangerous partial failures: customers don’t see temporary wrong balances.
- Absolute integrity: critical transactions are always correct.
Lesson: choose the wrong tool, and microservices can turn into an operational nightmare, even if you just wanted “to apply a cool technique.”
6. Real Lessons from Applying Saga
After all the shocks from partial failure, approximate compensate, duplicate events, and choosing a model, you begin to draw “painful” lessons.
You recall the first time you deployed Saga: events delayed, compensate called in wrong order, customers constantly calling support. Only then you understood:
- Uncontrolled retries = disaster. Idempotency is mandatory.
- Compensate can’t save everything. It only reduces risk; sometimes manual intervention is still needed.
- Customers see temporary inconsistent states? UX must be clever, alerts clear, reconciliation always ready.
- Deployment model has no perfect choice. Orchestration is easier to debug but SPoF; Choreography is distributed but hard to trace. Choose a flow wisely, not on a whim.
- Saga is not for every system. If business requires strong consistency – e.g., banking – 2PC or other synchronous transactions are safer.
Looking back, you realize: Saga isn’t magic, it’s a sophisticated tool. Applied correctly → reduces risk, increases flexibility. Applied wrongly → operational nightmare.
Most importantly: don’t use it because it’s “cool,” use it because it truly fits your business needs.
Conclusion
Saga Pattern is a powerful tool for complex distributed transactions, but not a solution for every problem.
Key takeaways:
- Understand trade-offs and edge cases.
- Prepare monitoring, alerting, retry, reconciliation, and even manual intervention.
- Choose between Orchestration and Choreography based on flow, debugging, SPoF.
- Evaluate system specifics before deploying Saga, avoiding environments needing strong consistency, where 2PC or synchronous transactions are safer.
After reading this, you’ll ask yourself:
“Does this business really need Saga, or am I just adding complexity for myself?”
Understanding this, you can implement Saga safely, flexibly, effectively, instead of getting caught in an entirely avoidable operational nightmare.
Top comments (0)