kleppmann-data-intensive

license: Apache-2.0 name: kleppmann-data-intensive description: Comprehensive guide to designing reliable, scalable data systems covering databases, streaming, and consistency category: Research & Academic tags:

• data-systems
• distributed-systems
• databases
• streaming
• consistency

---

SKILL: Designing Data-Intensive Systems (Kleppmann)

Source: Designing Data-Intensive Applications by Martin Kleppmann Domain: Distributed systems, data architecture, reliability engineering Applies to: Building systems where data complexity (not computation) is the bottleneck

DECISION POINTS

1. Consistency Model Selection

IF: Strong consistency required (banking, inventory)
  AND: Can tolerate higher latency + coordination overhead
THEN: Use linearizability with synchronous replication

IF: Operations need ordering but not global agreement
  AND: User experience matters more than strict consistency
THEN: Use causal consistency (preserve cause-effect, allow concurrent ops)

IF: High availability required during network partitions
  AND: Can resolve conflicts application-side
THEN: Accept eventual consistency with conflict resolution

IF: Read-your-writes is critical but global consistency isn't
  AND: Users mostly operate on their own data
THEN: Route user reads to leader/use session consistency

2. Scaling Architecture Decisions

IF: tail latency > 500ms + replication lag > 1s
  AND: Cache hit rate < 80%
THEN: Switch to local quorum reads, accept bounded staleness

IF: Write throughput bottleneck identified
  AND: Operations can be partitioned by key
THEN: Implement horizontal partitioning with partition-local transactions

IF: Cross-partition queries frequent
  AND: Eventual consistency acceptable for derived data
THEN: Use CQRS pattern (separate write/read paths)

IF: Coordination overhead dominates response time
  AND: Operations can be made idempotent
THEN: Replace distributed locks with compare-and-set operations

3. Failure Handling Strategy

IF: Component failure detected (timeout/error)
  AND: Operation might have succeeded
THEN: Make operation idempotent, use unique request IDs for retry

IF: Distributed resource coordination required
  AND: Process pauses/network delays possible
THEN: Implement fencing tokens (resource rejects lower-numbered tokens)

IF: Multi-step workflow spans services
  AND: Atomic rollback needed
THEN: Use saga pattern with compensating transactions, not 2PC

IF: Service dependency causing tail latency spikes
THEN: Implement circuit breaker + hedged requests after timeout threshold

FAILURE MODES

1. Split-Brain Coordination

Symptoms: Two nodes both believe they're the leader, conflicting writes accepted Root Causes: Network partition + inadequate quorum checking + lease expiry race conditions Detection Rule: If you see duplicate primary keys or "impossible" data states after network events Fixes (ranked by speed/safety):

1. Immediate: Enable fencing tokens, reject operations from stale leaders
2. Short-term: Implement proper quorum (majority must agree on leader)
3. Long-term: Use consensus algorithm (Raft/Paxos) for leader election

2. Cascade Failure Amplification

Symptoms: Single component failure causes system-wide outage, p99 latency spike across all services Root Causes: Synchronous dependencies + no circuit breakers + retry storms + unbounded queues Detection Rule: If failure rate increases exponentially rather than linearly with initial fault Fixes (ranked by speed/safety):

1. Immediate: Deploy circuit breakers, implement fail-fast with timeouts
2. Short-term: Add backpressure mechanisms, bound all queues
3. Long-term: Break synchronous dependencies, use asynchronous messaging

3. Read-After-Write Disappearing Data

Symptoms: User writes data, immediately reads and sees old value, claims "data was lost" Root Causes: Async replication lag + load balancer routes read to stale replica + no session affinity Detection Rule: If user complaints about "lost data" correlate with write-then-read patterns Fixes (ranked by speed/safety):

1. Immediate: Route user reads to primary for N seconds after write
2. Short-term: Implement read-your-writes consistency with logical timestamps
3. Long-term: Use strongly consistent reads for user-critical paths

4. Phantom Distributed Lock

Symptoms: Multiple processes acquire same lock simultaneously, resource corruption occurs Root Causes: Lock service uses timeouts without fencing + GC pauses + network delays exceed lease time Detection Rule: If you see lock violation errors or concurrent modification of "protected" resources Fixes (ranked by speed/safety):

1. Immediate: Implement fencing tokens, resource validates token before operation
2. Short-term: Use compare-and-set instead of locks where possible
3. Long-term: Redesign to avoid coordination, use immutable data structures

5. Thundering Herd Cache Stampede

Symptoms: Cache expires, all requests hit database simultaneously, database overloads Root Causes: Cache expiry + no request deduplication + synchronous cache population + high concurrency Detection Rule: If database load spikes correlate with cache miss events Fixes (ranked by speed/safety):

1. Immediate: Implement cache request coalescing, only one thread populates
2. Short-term: Use probabilistic cache refresh before expiry
3. Long-term: Implement cache warming and gradual expiry spreading

WORKED EXAMPLES

Example: E-commerce Inventory Management

Scenario: User adds last item to cart, another user tries same item simultaneously

Decision Process:

1. Identify coordination requirement: Need atomic decrement of inventory count
2. Assess consistency needs: Overselling is unacceptable (lost revenue + customer complaints)
3. Choose approach: Use linearizable reads/writes for inventory, eventual consistency for recommendations

Implementation:

-- Atomic inventory check with compare-and-set
UPDATE inventory 
SET quantity = quantity - 1, version = version + 1
WHERE product_id = ? AND quantity >= 1 AND version = ?

Novice would miss: Using SELECT then UPDATE (race condition window) Expert catches: Version field prevents lost updates, quantity check prevents overselling

Fallback handling:

• IF update affects 0 rows (item sold out): Return "out of stock" immediately
• IF operation times out: Use fencing token to prevent duplicate decrement
• IF database unavailable: Fail fast rather than queue requests indefinitely

Example: Social Feed Consistency

Scenario: User posts update, immediately checks feed, doesn't see their post

Decision Process:

1. Analyze user expectation: Seeing own posts matters, seeing others' posts can be delayed
2. Identify load parameters: Write fan-out to followers, not write volume
3. Choose consistency model: Causal consistency (preserve user's action order)

Implementation Strategy:

• Write to user's timeline synchronously (read-your-writes)
• Fan out to followers asynchronously (eventual consistency)
• Use logical timestamps to prevent time-travel anomalies

Quality validation:

• User always sees their own posts immediately
• Followers see posts within bounded time (monitor lag)
• No posts appear before their replies

QUALITY GATES

• Consistency model explicitly chosen and anomalies catalogued
• Load parameters identified and instrumented (p99 latency, fan-out ratio, partition skew)
• Failure modes tested: component failures, network partitions, process pauses
• Coordination minimized: operations partitioned, idempotency implemented
• Tail latency measured: p99 and p999 tracked separately from averages
• Quorum mathematics verified: w + r > n for required consistency level
• Circuit breakers deployed: timeout and error rate thresholds configured
• Observability complete: can trace requests across service boundaries
• Chaos testing implemented: deliberate fault injection in non-production
• Rollback strategy proven: can revert changes without data loss

NOT-FOR BOUNDARIES

This skill should NOT be used for:

• Pure computational problems (ML training, rendering) → Use parallel-processing patterns instead
• Single-machine applications with local data → Use database-patterns skill instead
• Systems where "eventual consistency" means "never consistent" is acceptable → Use eventual-consistency-design skill instead
• Real-time systems with hard latency bounds → Use real-time-systems skill instead

Delegate to other skills:

• For message queue design → Use messaging-patterns skill
• For database schema design → Use data-modeling skill
• For microservices boundaries → Use service-decomposition skill
• For monitoring/alerting setup → Use observability skill