Baking · Events · This baking-events bug hid for three years before anyone reported it

773
BAr/baking-events·posted by bob_chen·5 minutes agoTutorial

This baking-events bug hid for three years before anyone reported it

Some background first. Our setup is baking-events plus three downstream services, seven figures of daily requests, peaking around nine in the evening.

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.

// Minimal reproduction: you must use a real long-tail distribution here.
// Uniform load-test traffic will never trigger this.
func (s *Server) handle(ctx context.Context) error {
    conn, err := s.pool.Acquire(ctx)
    if err != nil {
        return fmt.Errorf("acquire: %w", err)
    }
    defer conn.Release()

    return s.do(ctx, conn)
}

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".

On trade-offs, my view is this: if nobody on the team owns this area long-term, do not introduce a second mechanism. With two coexistence you first have to work out which one is even in play when things break, and that costs far more than the performance you saved.

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.

232 comments

232 comments

· first 120 loaded
M
Ttang_haoMod·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.

518
Sslow_query·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.

512
Sswoole_leeOP·2 days ago

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

1
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.

7
Ddev_zhou·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.

483
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

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

475
Hhuang_ke·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.

307
Ddev_zhou·1 hour agoedited

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

395
Oops_wang·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.

395
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.

387
Ddev_zhou·12 minutes ago

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

355
Bbob_chen·2 days ago

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

336
Wwinter·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.

328
Zzhu_zong·28 minutes ago

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

321
Lli_ming·yesterday

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.

362
Kkernel_panic·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.

3
Ttang_hao·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.

300
Lli_ming·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.

299
Wwinter·just nowedited

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.

286
Kkernel_panicOP·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.

225
Rrase·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.

251
Rran_boMod·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.

246
Hhuang_ke·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.

217
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.

191
NnikicOP·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".

3
Hhuang_ke·2 days ago

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

180
Ttang_haoMod·2 days ago

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

174
Mmike_xuOP·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.

109
Sswoole_lee·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.

136
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".

130
Cchen_devOP·2 days ago

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

57
Cchen_dev·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.

18
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.

98
Sslow_queryOP·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.

17
Hhuang_ke·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.

246
Aalice_dev·2 hours ago

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

280
Sswoole_lee·1 hour 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.

391
Zzhou_yi·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.

237
Hhuang_ke·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.

17
Hhuang_ke·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.

10
Zzhou_yi·1 hour ago

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

90
Hhuang_ke·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.

401
Lli_ming·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.

135
Cchen_devMod·2 days agoLevel 6

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.

13
Bbob_chen·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".

42
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

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

1
Sslow_query·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.

519
Sslow_queryOP·2 days ago

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

433
Kkite·2 days agoLevel 6

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.

49
Ddev_zhou·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.

386
Cchen_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".

44
Ttang_hao·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".

1
Sslow_query·2 days agoLevel 6

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.

64
Ddev_zhou·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.

4
Rran_bo·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.

37
Cchen_dev·12 minutes ago

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

20
Oops_wang·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.

4
Lli_mingOP·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.

77
Ddev_zhouOP·2 days ago

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

46
Kkernel_panic·2 days ago

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

28
Aalice_dev·2 hours agoedited

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

90
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.

256
Kkernel_panic·2 days ago

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

313
Lli_ming·2 days ago

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

289
Wwinter·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.

1
NnikicOP·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.

7
Oops_wang·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.

67
Sswoole_lee·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.

61
Kkernel_panic·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.

52
Kkite·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.

46
Sslow_query·12 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.

29
Lli_ming·28 minutes 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.

25
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

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

330
Zzhou_yi·just now

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.

6
Kkite·2 days ago

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

30
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.

25
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".

24
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

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

17
Zzhou_yi·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".

17
Aalice_dev·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.

84
Rran_bo·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.

16
Zzhu_zong·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.

12
Kkite·2 days ago

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

10
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.

8
Ddev_zhou·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.

7
Kkite·5 hours 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.

4
Aalice_devOP·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.

23
Aalice_dev·5 hours ago

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

317
Aalice_devOP·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.

36
Aalice_dev·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
Ttang_hao·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.

42
Aalice_dev·2 days ago

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

66
Kkite·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.

4
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.

16
Lli_ming·just now

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

3
Rran_bo·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
Wwinter·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.

418
Hhuang_ke·2 days ago

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

342
Kkite·2 days agoedited

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.

26
Aalice_dev·1 hour 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.

2
Ddev_zhou·3 minutes 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.

1
Wwinter·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.

113
Aalice_dev·2 days ago

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

88
Wwinter·2 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.

275
Sslow_query·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.

513
Mmike_xu·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.

333
Wwinter·12 minutes 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.

24
Sslow_query·2 days agoLevel 6

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.

97
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.

14
Llinlin·just now

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.

5
Rran_bo·2 days agoLevel 6

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.

1
Llinlin·2 days ago

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

10
Hhuang_ke·1 hour ago

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

393
Hhuang_keOP·2 days agoLevel 6

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.

9
Lli_ming·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.

25
Bbob_chenMod·2 days ago

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

9
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

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

1
Ttang_hao·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.

466
Lli_ming·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".

1
Sslow_query·yesterday

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.

1

This is the post detail page /en/c/baking-events/post/p5. 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 →