Clean Architecture · Chinese · Why does clean-architecture-zh use twice the memory of comparable tools?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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 is not a clean-architecture-zh problem, it is a usage problem. The docs say this API is not thread-safe and you must lock around it yourself.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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