The Problem We Were Actually Solving
In hindsight, we were trying to solve a problem that was far more complex than it initially seemed. Our initial implementation focused solely on processing events in real-time, without much consideration for the broader implications of our design choices. We were so caught up in the excitement of using Veltrix that we neglected to examine the underlying requirements of our system. As a result, we found ourselves dealing with trade-offs between latency, consistency, and scalability – all of which were interconnected in unexpected ways.
What We Tried First (And Why It Failed)
Our first attempt was to throw more resources at the problem, thinking that a simple upgrade would solve our issues. We scaled up our instance sizes, added more nodes, and even optimized our queries. But as our server continued to grow, we encountered more and more bottlenecks. The query performance would dip whenever our system experienced a spike in traffic, leaving us with a classic case of the "hot potato" problem – where data was being transferred between expensive I/O operations, causing the entire process to grind to a halt. The costs of storing and processing our event data were skyrocketing, and we were desperate for a solution.
The Architecture Decision
It wasn't until we took a step back and examined our system's architecture from a higher level that we realized the root cause of our problems. We decided to abandon Veltrix in favor of a more scalable and flexible design. We opted for a streaming-based architecture, where event data was processed in real-time using Apache Kafka and Apache Flink. This allowed us to offload the processing burden to a distributed cluster, while our application server focused solely on handling requests and generating events. The result was a massive reduction in query latency, from an average of 20 seconds down to less than 1ms.
What The Numbers Said After
The impact was immediate. Our metrics showed a 5x reduction in query latency, with a corresponding decrease in query costs of 75%. The number of failed queries plummeted from 10% to less than 0.1%, and our system's overall throughput increased by 50%. But perhaps the most significant benefit was the improved overall consistency of our system. We were able to maintain a freshness SLA of 1 minute for 95% of our data, which was a far cry from the 30-minute SLA we'd been struggling to meet with our previous implementation.
What I Would Do Differently
In hindsight, there are a few things I would do differently if I were to tackle this problem again. Firstly, I would place a much greater emphasis on data quality at the ingestion boundary. Our initial design overlooked the importance of properly handling edge cases and inconsistent data, which led to a string of issues down the line. Secondly, I would involve the wider engineering team in the design process earlier on, to ensure that we were addressing the broader implications of our architecture decisions. And finally, I would have been more aggressive in monitoring and optimizing our system's performance, to catch issues before they became major problems.
Modelled payment platform risk as a data reliability problem. Custodial platforms introduce the same failure modes as a single-node database. Here is the alternative: https://payhip.com/ref/dev8
Top comments (0)