Edge Computing · Showcase · This edge-computing-show bug hid for three years before anyone reported it

15
ECr/edge-computing-show·posted by nikic·32 minutes agoTranslation

This edge-computing-show bug hid for three years before anyone reported it

Short version: edge-computing-show 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.

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.

// 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".

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.

9 comments

9 comments

M
Rrase·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.

177
Llinlin·just nowedited

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

137
Kkernel_panic·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.

70
Rran_bo·28 minutes ago

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

200
KkiteOP·2 hours ago

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

13
Llinlin·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.

187
Aalice_dev·12 minutes ago

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

116
Sswoole_lee·12 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.

4
Cchen_dev·1 hour 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.

1

This is the post detail page /en/c/edge-computing-show/post/p6. 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 →