Baking · Events · The baking-events execution flow in one diagram (with sequence chart)

121
BAr/baking-events·posted by bob_chen·5 minutes agoExperience

The baking-events execution flow in one diagram (with sequence chart)

Short version: baking-events needs almost no tuning at small and medium scale — the point where it starts to hurt is much further out than most people assume. Full measurements below.

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.

# Load test: do not jump straight to the max concurrency.
# Ramp it up, otherwise you miss the knee.
for c in 50 100 200 400 800; do
  wrk -t8 -c$c -d60s --latency http://127.0.0.1:8080/api/feed
  sleep 20
done

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.

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".

We also fixed monitoring along the way: replaced average-based alerts with percentiles and split them per endpoint. False alerts dropped by about seventy percent and the on-call rotation visibly cheered up.

22 comments

22 comments

M
Mmike_xuMod·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.

519
Lli_ming·2 days agoedited

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

195
Sslow_query·12 minutes ago

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

492
Cchen_dev·5 hours agoedited

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.

1
Rran_boMod·3 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".

478
Rrase·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.

409
Mmike_xu·12 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.

362
Oops_wang·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.

383
Rran_bo·3 minutes 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.

320
Bbob_chen·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.

14
Llinlin·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.

313
RraseOP·yesterday

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.

192
Bbob_chen·2 days agoedited

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

474
Lli_ming·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.

136
Rran_bo·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.

80
Kkite·1 hour agoedited

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
Sswoole_lee·yesterdayedited

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

427
Sslow_query·28 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.

421
Aalice_dev·12 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.

10
Zzhou_yi·yesterday

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

1
WwinterOP·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.

98
Wwinter·5 hours agoedited

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

1

This is the post detail page /en/c/baking-events/post/p8. 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 →