Note: this essay tries to answer the question “What is the essence of System Design, and how do you do it?”. It covers broad strokes. At some point I hope to go much deeper. Meanwhile, I hope you find this enjoyable :)
What is a hacker’s paradise?
My vote would be the beginning years of a startup.
The whole system fits in your head. All your problems are important, and you can solve them any way you like. You’re spinning clay while the world is pouring concrete. If you love to create it’s easy to see: despite all the schleps of a startup, an environment with speed, independence, and changeability is paradise.
Elephant
But we know this doesn’t last long. When those same startups become big, most of them slow down to a crawl. Why is that?
In one of Rich Hickey’s talks, he made a metaphor that could explain it. Paraphrased, he said “Your system grows into an elephant. Every new feature is you teaching it new tricks”.
The larger and hairier the elephant, the harder it is to teach it tricks. And, of course some tricks become off-limits: you can’t teach an elephant to do backflips.
So companies slow down because their systems get large and hairy. Is that the only reason? I don’t think so, but it is certainly one of the biggest. An argument could be made for organizational issues: there’s a cost to lots of people working together. But systems grow exponentially in size, so even if everyone agreed and they worked together perfectly, I’d bet that system complexity would take a fair amount of the blame.
System Design
Taming that elephant, I think, is the essence of system design. So how do we *do s*ystem design?
A lot of complex ideas come to mind when we think about what’s involved: Robustness, performance, stability, safety, scale. These are all important concepts, but I think they are not the central goal.
The central goal is much simpler. It’s singular and defensive. Remember that when we started, we already had a hacker’s paradise, Our goal is to hold the fort. To do this, just one idea encapsulates it all: changeability. Changeability maximizes the impact an engineer can have on your system, and at the end of the day it’s those engineers who can affect any improvement to your system. This means that robustness, performance, stability, safety, scale, and all else are dependent on changeability.
System design is then the constant answer to the question: “How can I make my system as changeable as possible?”. That’s a simpler question, but the answer is no less difficult. Note one more surprising bit about it: we must answer this question differently over time. This means that design is dependent on time and context. Your answer can be right if applied at T0, but wrong if applied at T200.
Guide
Now, if making our system as changeable as possible is our primary act, how do we do it?
First, we’ll need to start off with the maximum level of changeability. Systems that are maximally changeable are as simple as possible. A simple system is the system that solves a problem with the minimum amount of specific concepts, in a way that keeps all these concepts as decoupled as possible.
That implies a few things: we would want to choose the most powerful language we can to solve our problem. This lets us use the most powerful abstractions, which will allow us to keep the number of specific concepts that define our program at a minimum. We would want to use powerful, immutable data structures, which will help us keep our abstractions concise and decoupled. It also means that we would want to use the simplest infrastructure we need to solve our problem. Simpler infrastructure allows us to avoid introducing concepts that aren’t needed to solve our problems. The same applies for the abstractions we choose: we’d want to use the abstractions that best solve for our specific use cases, rather than solve generally for potential future usecases we don’t have.
Note that if you follow these ideas, your initial system may look like a toy. It certainly won’t use kubernetes. Remember that system design is context-dependent, and at this point in time this is the best solution.
Now, we must iterate. At every step of the way, ask: what’s slowing down our productivity? Pick the highest impact issues and start to address them. Privacy getting too hairy? Introduce an abstraction that centralizes the complexity of privacy, and removes it from the realm of product engineering. Site going down too much? Introduce infrastructure for detection and debugging. Once that’s not enough, consider incident management systems.
The common theme here: centralize and push complexity down. You take pieces of complexity that every engineer needs to deal with, and create an interface they can use which abstracts the complexity away. As you do that, you try to make that infrastructure accessible: this means it’s written in a place where every engineer can access, in a language that every engineer can change. That will enable all engineers to use your abstraction, while having the option to dive deeper.
The fact that system design is iterative has two importance consequences.
The first is that you cannot escape technical debt. Because a solution at T0 becomes more and more incorrect as context changes, you are constantly accruing technical debt. Because of this, there can be no perfect system. It’s your job to constantly manage the tradeoff between quality and debt, and this iterative cycle is your sword.
The second is that applying blanket solutions will lead to failure. As you get more technical debt, you will invariably end up with a desire to enforce a new paradigm on the system: microservices being the common one today. Because a paradigm solves multiple general *issues, you invariably introduce some concepts that don’t *specifically solve your issues, and have their own tradeoffs. The solution is again to lean in to the iterative model: apply specific solutions to specific problems*.*
Debt
As you iterate, you’ll constantly run into the struggle between accruing and paying down debt: do you slow down your velocity now to improve future changeability later? The context we work in is so complicated that there can’t be a simple formula here. But, like in most craft, we can lean in rules of thumb.
The first problem comes when you are considering introducing new debt. The key rule to consider here is the nature of the debt. Not all debt are created equal — some have higher interest. Let’s compare two examples to illustrate. The first involves introducing a staging environment, or improving performance. This does not get appreciably harder later. Compare that to knowingly introducing a data model change, that you know you’ll need to migrate later. This involves significantly more incidental work: dual writes, backfills, shadow testing, the whole schebang. Based on the nature of the debt and the importance of your current commitments, you need to balance and make a choice.
The second problem comes when you are considering paying down debt. The key rule to consider here is pain. You already have a sense of the debt that is either causing the biggest slow down, or is about too. It’s difficult to measure your success here, as if you do your job well, no one will even feel the pain. Nevertheless this skill can be learned from your mistakes. First fix what causes the most pain immediately. Then, get better and better at pre-empting the largest amount of pain earlier. That, granted is a lofty goal — I have never worked at a company where there wasn’t at least one glaring way to make things a magnitude better.
Fin
So we come down to the central idea. To keep your hacker’s paradise you need to tame your system complexity elephant. To do that, you need to keep your system as changeable as possible. To do that, you need to start out with a simple system, and evolve it iteratively as you grow. There’s so much more I want to go deeper into, but that will have to wait for another. I hope this gives you a good model to think with.
Thanks to Mark Shlick, Jacky Wang, Daniel Woelfel, Irakli Popkhadze, David Magaltadze, Irakli Safareli, for reviewing drafts of this essay
Top comments (1)
Yes. Thank you. This essay harks back to Martin Fowler's comments on "Sacrificial Architecture."