Baking · Events · Help: baking-events fails to start intermittently in containers, logs inside

668
BAr/baking-events·posted by swoole_lee·32 minutes agoHelp

Help: baking-events fails to start intermittently in containers, logs inside

Most baking-events articles stop at "how to use it" and never cover "when not to use it". This is an attempt at the second half.

What genuinely surprised me was the tail. The average looked great while P99 jumped by an order of magnitude past some threshold. The cause was not baking-events itself but our upstream connection reuse — the load test traffic was too clean and hid the long-tail requests.

-- The query that broke: a full scan over 20M rows.
-- A composite index took P99 from 1.8s down to 42ms.
SELECT id, title, created_at
  FROM posts
 WHERE community_id = ?
   AND status = 1
 ORDER BY score DESC
 LIMIT 20;

Worth noting: the official docs do cover this, just in a very inconspicuous spot. I only found it reading the source comments, where the author explains the reasoning — roughly "so that it degrades into predictable behaviour in extreme cases".

One last trap: in container environments remember to adjust the memory-related parameters in step. Otherwise the host limit and the process expectation disagree, and the symptom is intermittent, unreproducible failure.

The first thing was to collapse the variables. We were changing config and upgrading the version at the same time, and afterwards nobody could say which change caused what. We rolled back to moving one variable at a time, re-ran three times, and only then did the curve settle. Tedious, but not skippable.

112 comments

112 comments

M
Aalice_devOP·2 days ago

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.

496
WwinterMod·2 days ago

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.

454
Cchen_dev·3 minutes ago

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.

448
Lli_mingOP·2 days ago

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

1
Wwinter·2 days ago

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

139
Wwinter·2 hours ago

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

5
Llinlin·2 days ago

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.

121
Rran_bo·28 minutes ago

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.

181
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

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

115
Kkite·2 days agoedited

This is not a baking-events problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

8
Zzhou_yiOP·2 days ago

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.

312
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

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.

436
Sslow_query·2 days ago

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.

429
Bbob_chenOP·2 days ago

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

296
Kkernel_panic·yesterdayedited

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

105
Aalice_dev·2 days agoedited

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.

23
Sslow_query·2 days ago

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.

2
Zzhu_zong·just now

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

329
Wwinter·2 days ago

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

312
Bbob_chenOP·2 days ago

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.

237
Kkite·2 days agoedited

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

289
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

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

117
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

This is not a baking-events problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

284
Sswoole_lee·12 minutes ago

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.

257
Rrase·2 days ago

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.

208
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

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

2
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

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

206
Wwinter·1 hour ago

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.

203
Zzhu_zong·just now

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.

181
Oops_wang·2 days ago

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.

115
Oops_wang·2 days ago

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

338
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

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.

480
Sswoole_lee·2 days ago

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.

331
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

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

176
Sslow_query·2 days agoedited

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

154
Kkite·2 days ago

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.

200
Oops_wangOP·2 days agoedited

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.

518
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

This is not a baking-events problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

153
Rrase·28 minutes ago

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

148
Rrase·2 days ago

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.

147
Kkernel_panic·2 days ago

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.

146
Aalice_dev·2 days ago

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.

142
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

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

14
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

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

120
RraseOP·2 days ago

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

48
Rrase·2 days agoedited

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.

97
Kkite·2 days ago

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.

97
Mmike_xuOP·28 minutes ago

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

34
Wwinter·2 days ago

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

75
Ddev_zhou·2 days ago

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.

88
Wwinter·1 hour ago

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

83
Kkernel_panic·2 days ago

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

71
Sslow_query·1 hour ago

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.

390
Cchen_dev·3 minutes ago

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.

89
Sswoole_lee·2 days ago

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

140
Nnikic·28 minutes agoedited

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

364
Llinlin·2 days ago

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

4
Ddev_zhou·5 hours agoedited

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

71
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

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.

67
Sslow_query·2 days ago

This is not a baking-events problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

49
Aalice_dev·2 days ago

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.

263
Sswoole_lee·5 hours ago

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

358
Sslow_query·2 days ago

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.

44
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

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

12
Wwinter·2 hours ago

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.

38
Kkernel_panicMod·2 days agoedited

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

32
Wwinter·2 days ago

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.

31
Oops_wangMod·2 days ago

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.

182
Aalice_dev·2 days ago

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.

29
Nnikic·28 minutes ago

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.

25
Hhuang_ke·12 minutes ago

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

459
Wwinter·2 days ago

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

354
Ddev_zhouOP·2 days ago

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

16
Kkernel_panicMod·2 hours ago

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

178
Kkernel_panicOP·2 days agoedited

This is not a baking-events problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

1
Llinlin·3 minutes ago

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

19
Wwinter·2 days ago

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.

98
Aalice_dev·2 days ago

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.

83
Sslow_query·2 days ago

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

54
Nnikic·2 days ago

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.

364
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

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

1
Zzhou_yiOP·2 days agoedited

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.

217
Ttang_hao·just now

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

3
Cchen_dev·just now

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.

435
Llinlin·5 hours ago

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.

518
Kkernel_panic·2 days ago

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.

248
Lli_mingOP·2 days agoedited

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

286
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

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

4
Aalice_dev·2 days ago

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

129
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

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

19
Hhuang_ke·2 days ago

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

14
Bbob_chen·2 hours ago

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

32
Aalice_dev·2 days ago

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

10
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

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

9
Ddev_zhou·2 days ago

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

8
Llinlin·5 hours ago

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.

6
Rran_bo·5 hours ago

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.

92
Kkite·2 days ago

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

443
Llinlin·1 hour ago

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.

3
Kkernel_panic·2 days ago

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.

389
Kkite·2 days ago

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

5
Rrase·2 days ago

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.

4
Kkite·1 hour ago

This is not a baking-events problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

4
Rrase·28 minutes ago

This is not a baking-events problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

3
Rran_bo·2 days agoedited

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

55
Cchen_dev·1 hour ago

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

120
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

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.

3
Lli_ming·2 days ago

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.

355
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

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.

2
Oops_wang·2 days agoedited

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

2
Rrase·2 days ago

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.

370
Nnikic·1 hour ago

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

1

This is the post detail page /en/c/baking-events/post/p1. Posts and comments are generated deterministically from a seeded PRNG, so the same post always renders the same content and the link can be shared, reloaded and indexed. In production this page reads MySQL for the post, Redis for hot-post caching, and fetches the whole comment tree in a single query on the path column.

See the database schema →