Keyboard Community · Postmortem: how we exhausted the connection pool in keyboard

772
KEr/keyboard·posted by winter·1 hour agoOpen source

Postmortem: how we exhausted the connection pool in keyboard

It took me two weeks of on-and-off digging and plenty of wrong turns. Writing the process down as it happened so the next person spends less time.

# 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

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.

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.

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.

151 comments

151 comments

· first 120 loaded
M
Zzhou_yi·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.

492
Hhuang_ke·just now

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

429
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.

420
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.

256
Ddev_zhou·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
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.

6
Llinlin·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.

407
Ddev_zhouMod·2 days 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.

49
Zzhou_yiMod·2 days ago

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

10
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

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

404
Sswoole_lee·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.

301
Ddev_zhouMod·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.

180
Zzhou_yi·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
Ddev_zhou·2 days ago

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

235
Oops_wang·2 days ago

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

211
Sslow_query·2 hours ago

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

216
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.

248
Sswoole_lee·2 days ago

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

99
WwinterOP·2 days ago

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

32
Sswoole_lee·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.

89
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

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

208
Llinlin·2 days ago

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

195
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.

460
Wwinter·2 days ago

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

8
Wwinter·2 days ago

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

178
Sswoole_lee·3 minutes ago

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

169
Zzhou_yi·2 days ago

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

322
Lli_mingMod·28 minutes ago

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

199
Aalice_devMod·2 hours ago

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

4
Zzhou_yi·2 days ago

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

470
Rran_bo·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.

39
Lli_ming·yesterday

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

106
Zzhou_yi·3 minutes agoedited

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.

194
Hhuang_ke·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.

138
Wwinter·1 hour agoedited

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

17
Oops_wang·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.

195
Rran_bo·2 days ago

One counter-example: below keyboard 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
Aalice_dev·2 days ago

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

148
Wwinter·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.

144
Nnikic·1 hour ago

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

29
Oops_wang·1 hour 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.

483
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.

310
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.

199
Sslow_query·2 days ago

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

117
Ttang_haoOP·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.

273
Oops_wang·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
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

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

332
Wwinter·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.

95
Sswoole_lee·2 hours ago

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

131
Sslow_query·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.

1
Sswoole_lee·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.

119
Oops_wang·2 days ago

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

99
Sswoole_lee·2 days ago

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

91
Bbob_chen·3 minutes ago

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

75
Llinlin·1 hour ago

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

12
Llinlin·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.

64
Sswoole_lee·just now

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

63
Zzhou_yi·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.

54
Bbob_chen·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.

34
Zzhou_yi·28 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.

27
Zzhu_zongOP·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.

236
Rrase·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.

17
Kkernel_panicOP·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.

55
Sswoole_lee·2 days ago

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

44
Cchen_dev·3 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.

281
Rrase·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.

20
Llinlin·1 hour 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.

13
Wwinter·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.

309
KkiteOP·2 days ago

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

11
Mmike_xu·2 days ago

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

23
Bbob_chen·28 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.

22
Hhuang_ke·just now

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

20
Ttang_hao·2 days ago

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

17
Wwinter·2 days ago

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

11
Kkernel_panic·2 days agoedited

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

189
Kkernel_panic·12 minutes ago

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

9
Nnikic·yesterday

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.

222
Sswoole_lee·3 minutes ago

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

8
Rran_bo·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.

6
Rran_bo·2 days agoedited

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.

292
KkiteOP·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 agoedited

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
KkiteMod·2 days ago

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

12
Oops_wang·12 minutes agoLevel 6

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

377
Rrase·1 hour ago

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

71
Sslow_query·2 days ago

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

208
Llinlin·2 days agoLevel 6

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.

361
Hhuang_ke·2 days agoLevel 6

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.

27
Bbob_chen·2 hours 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.

2
Nnikic·3 minutes ago

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

1
Sswoole_lee·2 days agoLevel 6

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

197
Oops_wang·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.

1
Nnikic·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.

75
Mmike_xuMod·2 days ago

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

143
Hhuang_ke·just now

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.

1
Ttang_hao·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.

152
Zzhu_zong·3 minutes ago

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

361
Hhuang_ke·2 days ago

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

470
Rrase·3 minutes ago

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

226
Bbob_chen·12 minutes ago

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

220
Kkernel_panic·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.

47
Hhuang_ke·2 days ago

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

149
Hhuang_ke·2 days agoeditedLevel 6

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

255
Bbob_chen·1 hour agoLevel 6

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

28
Mmike_xu·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.

6
Hhuang_ke·2 days agoLevel 6

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

22
Rran_bo·2 days ago

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

1
Wwinter·2 days ago

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

10
Zzhou_yi·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.

4
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.

417
Mmike_xu·just now

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

4
Zzhou_yi·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.

6
Sswoole_lee·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.

5
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.

4
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

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

227
Rran_bo·just now

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
Zzhu_zong·3 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.

406
Llinlin·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.

245
Kkernel_panicOP·1 hour ago

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

35
Aalice_dev·just now

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.

92

This is the post detail page /en/c/keyboard/post/p3. 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 →