Offline First · Open source · This offline-first-opensource bug hid for three years before anyone reported it

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

One counter-example: below offline-first-opensource 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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