Verilog · Beginners · Newbie question: how should a verilog-newbie config file be organised?

188
VEr/verilog-newbie·posted by rase·yesterdayInternals

Newbie question: how should a verilog-newbie config file be organised?

Most verilog-newbie articles stop at "how to use it" and never cover "when not to use it". This is an attempt at the second half.

// 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)
}

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 verilog-newbie itself but our upstream connection reuse — the load test traffic was too clean and hid the long-tail requests.

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".

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.

103 comments

103 comments

M
Ddev_zhouOP·12 minutes ago

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

480
Kkernel_panic·5 hours ago

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

518
Mmike_xu·2 days agoedited

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

514
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.

504
Zzhou_yi·5 hours agoedited

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

147
Cchen_dev·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.

479
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.

45
Mmike_xu·2 hours 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.

478
Wwinter·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.

83
Ttang_hao·3 minutes 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.

450
Kkernel_panic·28 minutes ago

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

196
Lli_ming·2 hours 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.

80
Zzhu_zong·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.

39
Hhuang_ke·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.

139
Nnikic·2 days agoedited

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

70
Bbob_chen·1 hour ago

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

91
Llinlin·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.

81
Oops_wang·2 days agoedited

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

3
Sswoole_lee·2 days ago

One counter-example: below verilog-newbie 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
Ddev_zhou·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.

77
Ddev_zhou·2 days ago

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

431
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.

6
Hhuang_keOP·28 minutes ago

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

9
Rrase·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.

425
Rrase·2 days agoedited

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

410
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.

409
Mmike_xu·12 minutes agoedited

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

396
Llinlin·3 minutes ago

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

331
Ttang_hao·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.

244
Ddev_zhouOP·2 days ago

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

3
Aalice_dev·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.

80
Mmike_xu·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.

174
Cchen_dev·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.

265
Oops_wang·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.

65
Lli_ming·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
Kkite·28 minutes 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.

38
Wwinter·2 days ago

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

4
Rran_bo·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.

1
Sswoole_lee·2 days ago

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

305
Llinlin·1 hour 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.

273
LlinlinMod·2 days agoedited

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.

129
Sslow_queryMod·2 days ago

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

240
Aalice_dev·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.

228
Sslow_queryOP·1 hour ago

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

137
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

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

196
Kkite·1 hour ago

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

192
Rrase·yesterday

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

189
Bbob_chen·2 hours ago

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

180
Rrase·2 days ago

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

173
Oops_wang·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.

169
Kkite·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.

469
Rrase·2 days ago

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

382
Ddev_zhou·2 days ago

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

309
Kkernel_panic·2 days ago

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

17
Rran_bo·5 hours ago

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

151
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.

133
Aalice_dev·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.

98
Zzhou_yi·2 hours ago

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

133
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.

129
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

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

111
Llinlin·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.

73
Zzhu_zong·2 days ago

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

18
Kkernel_panic·2 days agoedited

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

354
Ttang_hao·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.

221
Kkite·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.

285
Aalice_dev·2 days 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.

495
Kkite·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.

118
Zzhu_zong·2 hours ago

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

6
Zzhou_yi·2 hours ago

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

73
Sslow_query·3 minutes agoedited

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

234
Zzhu_zongOP·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.

88
Ttang_hao·2 days agoedited

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

187
Kkernel_panicOP·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.

101
Zzhu_zong·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.

41
Sslow_query·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.

64
Bbob_chenOP·12 minutes agoedited

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

3
Rrase·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.

14
Zzhu_zong·2 days agoedited

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

1
Hhuang_ke·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.

44
Oops_wang·3 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.

298
Cchen_dev·3 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.

343
Ddev_zhouOP·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.

133
Oops_wang·2 days ago

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

1
Rran_bo·28 minutes 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.

266
Wwinter·2 hours 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.

127
Cchen_dev·2 days ago

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

178
Aalice_devOP·2 days ago

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

105
Rran_bo·1 hour 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.

159
Zzhu_zong·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.

200
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.

145
Aalice_devOP·2 days agoeditedLevel 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.

354
Wwinter·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.

74
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.

1
Zzhu_zong·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.

342
Ddev_zhou·2 days ago

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

317
Rran_bo·5 hours ago

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

72
Aalice_devMod·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.

42
Sslow_query·2 days ago

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

41
Sslow_query·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.

29
Kkernel_panic·just nowedited

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

27
Lli_ming·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.

18
Aalice_devMod·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.

9
Oops_wang·just now

One counter-example: below verilog-newbie 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

This is the post detail page /en/c/verilog-newbie/post/p4. 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 →