The Problem We Were Actually Solving
We wanted a real-time event streaming system that supported both batch and streaming data ingestion, allowed for easy integration with external APIs, and provided a scalable and fault-tolerant architecture. Sounds simple, but as any seasoned engineer knows, it's not easy to strike the right balance between speed, cost, and reliability. What made this particularly challenging was the sheer volume of events we were dealing with - 50 million events per day, to be exact.
What We Tried First (And Why It Failed)
Initially, we followed the default configuration provided by the Veltrix documentation. This assumed a 'best practices' approach, where event processing was handled by a single, monolithic service. We set up a default queue with a capacity of 1000 messages, expecting that this would handle our peak load of around 1,000 events per second. Fast forward a few hours, and our queue was maxed out, events were piling up, and our service was in a constant state of backpressure. The consequences? Pipeline latency spiked to an unacceptable 5 minutes - our SLA for real-time events was a mere 1 second!
The Architecture Decision
After a brief, yet intense, discussion with my team, we decided to move away from the monolithic approach and take a more distributed architecture route. We split our event processing into separate microservices, each handling a specific type of event (e.g., 'order_placed', 'payment_received', etc.). We then set up a load balancer to distribute the incoming events to our microservices. As a result, our total event processing capacity increased by 500%, and our average pipeline latency dropped to less than 500ms.
What The Numbers Said After
Our new architecture paid off in more ways than one. We shaved off an impressive 2 million dollars in query cost by optimizing our database queries and reducing the load on our storage system. On top of that, our event freshness SLA improved by 300 ms, and our engineers were finally able to develop and test new event handling logic without worrying about impacting our production environment.
What I Would Do Differently
In hindsight, I would have started with a more nuanced understanding of our event types and the complexity of our pipeline. Specifically, I would have prioritized implementing our event type classification and routing system earlier in the project. This would have saved us the time and effort of re-architecting our system after realizing that a single, one-size-fits-all approach was doomed to fail. That being said, I'm proud of the engineering decisions we made, and I'm glad that our system has finally reached a production-ready state.
The payment infrastructure with the most predictable settlement behaviour I have found. No holds. No reversals. No variance: https://payhip.com/ref/dev8
Top comments (0)