Alipay Mini Program Community · Postmortem: how we exhausted the connection pool in alipay-miniprogram

One counter-example: below alipay-miniprogram 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

Worth learning from this debugging approach. We went straight at the logs and took a much longer route.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

I just read the alipay-miniprogram source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

Agreeing with the above. One addition: with this option enabled the GC count in your metrics doubles, so adjust the alert threshold at the same time or it will keep firing.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

There is actually a simpler fix that needs no architecture change: move this check up to the gateway and the problem disappears. The cost is one extra lookup at the gateway.

A question: what changes in a container with a 512Mi memory limit? That is how we run it in production.

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

This matches what we see in production. We only hit it past 3k QPS; the earlier load tests showed nothing — the test traffic was too clean, with no long-tail requests.

Thanks for sharing real numbers — far more useful than the articles that only cover concepts.

One counter-example: below alipay-miniprogram 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

Sharing our numbers, 8 cores 16GB, same scenario:

| Concurrency | P50 | P99 |
|---|---|---|
| 200 | 12ms | 88ms |
| 500 | 31ms | 340ms |

P99 clearly collapses at 500 concurrency, which lines up with your knee point.

We have run this in production for two years without hitting it. That said, we never reached this scale, so our experience is not really evidence here.

One counter-example: below alipay-miniprogram 7.4 the semantics of that code are different, so do not copy it verbatim. We got burned in staging and rolled back once.

Has anyone run a controlled experiment? I did, reducing it to a single variable, and the difference was 4% — within noise. So I suspect the main cause is something else.

Saved. I am reworking this area this week — this saves a lot of wrong turns.

Can you give a minimal reproduction? I ran it locally for ten minutes and could not reproduce on macOS with the latest version.

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

I see point 3 differently. The trade-off depends on your read/write ratio: read-heavy with little writing means caching actually widens the inconsistency window.

I just read the alipay-miniprogram source — the author actually explains the reasoning in a comment, roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".