You Own Your Availability

There’s been a lot of discussion around “availability” lately. It’s often trumpeted with phrases like “you own your availability,” meaning there is no buck-passing when it comes to service uptime. The AWS outage earlier this week served as a stark reminder that, while owning your availability is a commendable ambition, for many it’s still largely owned by Amazon and the like.

In order to “own” your availability, it’s important to first understand what “availability” really means. Within the context of distributed-systems theory, availability is usually discussed in relation to the CAP theorem. Formally, CAP defines availability as a liveness property: “every request received by a non-failing node in the system must result in a response.” This is a weak definition for two reasons. First, the proviso “every request received by a non-failing node” means that a system in which all nodes have failed is trivially available.  Second, Gilbert and Lynch stipulate no upper bound on latency, only that operations eventually return a response. This means an operation could take weeks to complete and availability would not be violated.

Martin Kleppmann points out these issues in his recent paper “A Critique of the CAP Theorem.” I don’t think there is necessarily a problem with the formalizations made by CAP, just a matter of engineering practicality. Kleppmann’s critique recalls a pertinent quote from Leslie Lamport on the topic of liveness:

Liveness properties are inherently problematic. The question of whether a real system satisfies a liveness property is meaningless; it can be answered only by observing the system for an infinite length of time, and real systems don’t run forever. Liveness is always an approximation to the property we really care about. We want a program to terminate within 100 years, but proving that it does would require the addition of distracting timing assumptions. So, we prove the weaker condition that the program eventually terminates. This doesn’t prove that the program will terminate within our lifetimes, but it does demonstrate the absence of infinite loops.

Despite the pop culture surrounding it, CAP is not meant to neatly classify systems. It’s meant to serve as a jumping-off point from which we can reason from the ground up about distributed systems and the inherent limitations associated with them. It’s a reality check.

Practically speaking, availability is typically described in terms of “uptime” or the proportion of time which requests are successfully served. Brewer refers to this as “yield,” which is the probability of completing a request. This is the metric that is normally measured in “nines,” such as “five-nines availability.”

In the presence of faults there is typically a tradeoff between providing no answer (reducing yield) and providing an imperfect answer (maintaining yield, but reducing harvest).

However, this definition is only marginally more useful than CAP’s since it still doesn’t provide an upper bound on computation.

CAP is better used as a starting point for system design and understanding trade-offs than as a tool for reasoning about availability because it doesn’t really account for real availability. “Harvest” and “yield” show that availability is really a probabilistic property and that the trade with consistency is usually a gradient. But availability is much more nuanced than CAP’s “are we serving requests?” and harvest/yield’s “how many requests?” In practice, availability equates to SLAs. How many requests are we serving? At what rate? At what latency? At what percentiles? These things can’t really be formalized into a theorem like CAP because they are empirically observed, not properties of an algorithm.

Availability is specified by an SLA but observed by outside users. Unlike consistency, which is a property of the system and maintained by algorithm invariants, availability is determined by the client. For example, one user’s requests are served but another user’s are not. To the first user, the system is completely available.

To truly own your availability, you have to own every piece of infrastructure from the client to you, in addition to the infrastructure your system uses. Therefore, you can’t own your availability anymore than you can own Comcast’s fiber or Verizon’s 4G network. This is obviously impractical, if not impossible, but it might also be taking “own your availability” a bit too literally.

What “you own your availability” actually means is “you own your decisions.” Plain and simple. You own the decision to use AWS. You own the decision to use DynamoDB. You own the decision to not use multiple vendors. Owning your availability means making informed decisions about technology and vendors. “What is the risk/reward for using this database?” “Does using a PaaS/IaaS incur vendor lock-in? What happens when that service goes down?” It also means making informed decisions about the business. “What is the cost of our providers not meeting their SLAs? Is it cost-effective to have redundant providers?”

An SLA is not an insurance policy or a hedge against the business impact of an outage, it’s merely a refund policy. Use them to set expectations and make intelligent decisions, but don’t bank the business on them. Availability is not a timeshare. It’s not at will. You can’t just pawn it off, just like you can’t redirect your tech support to Amazon or Google.

It’s impossible to own your availability because there are too many things left to probability, too many unknowns, and too many variables outside of our control. Own as much as you can predict, as much as you can control, and as much as you can afford. The rest comes down to making informed decisions, hoping for the best, and planning for the worst.

What You Want Is What You Don’t: Understanding Trade-Offs in Distributed Messaging

If there’s one unifying theme of this blog, it’s that distributed systems are riddled with trade-offs. Specifically, with distributed messaging, you cannot have exactly-once delivery. However, messaging trade-offs don’t stop at delivery semantics. I want to talk about what I mean by this and explain why many developers often have the wrong mindset when it comes to building distributed applications.

The natural tendency is to build distributed systems as if they aren’t distributed at all—assuming data consistency, reliable messaging, and predictability. It’s much easier to reason about, but it’s also blatantly misleading.

The only thing guaranteed in messaging—and distributed systems in general—is that sooner or later, your guarantees are going to break down. If you assume these guarantees as axiomatic, everything built on them becomes unsound. Depending on the situation, this can range from mildly annoying to utterly catastrophic.

I recently ran across a comment from Apcera CEO Derek Collison on this topic which resonated with me:

On systems that do claim some form of guarantee, it’s best to look at what level that guarantee really runs out. Especially around persistence, exactly once delivery semantics, etc. I spent much of my career designing and building messaging systems that have those guarantees, and in turn developed many systems utilizing some of those features. For me, I found that depending on these guarantees was a bad pattern in distributed system design…

You should know how your system behaves when you reach the breaking point, but what’s less obvious is that providing these types of strong guarantees is usually very expensive. What price are we willing to pay, what level do our guarantees hold to, and what happens when they give out? In this sense, a “guarantee” is really no different from a SLA, yet stronger guarantees allow for stronger assumptions.

This all sounds quite vague, so let’s look at a specific example. With messaging, we’re often concerned with delivery reliability. In a perfect world, message delivery would be guaranteed and exactly once. Of course, I’ve talked at length why this is impossible, so let’s anchor ourselves in reality. We can look to TCP/IP for how this works.

IP is an unreliable delivery system which runs on unreliable network infrastructure. Packets can be delivered in order, out of order, or not at all. There are no acknowledgements, so the sender has no way of knowing if what they sent was received. TCP builds on IP by effectively making the transmission stateful and adding a layer of control. Through added complexity and performance costs, we achieve reliable delivery over an unreliable stack.

The key takeaway here is that we start with something primitive, like moving bits from point A to point B, and layer on abstractions to build stronger guarantees.  These abstractions almost always come at a price, tangible or not, which is why it’s important to push the costs up into the layers above. If not every use case demands reliable delivery, why force the cost onto everyone?

Exactly-once delivery is the Holy Grail of distributed messaging, and guaranteed delivery is the unicorn. The irony is that even if they were attainable, you likely wouldn’t want them. These types of strong guarantees demand expensive infrastructure which perform expensive coordination which require expensive administration. But what does all this expensive stuff really buy you at the end of the day?

A key problem is that there is a huge difference between message delivery and message processing. Sure, TCP can more or less ensure that your packet was either delivered or not, but what good is that actually in practice? How does the sender know that its message was successfully processed or that the receiver did what it needed to do? The only way to truly know is for the receiver to send a business-level acknowledgement. The low-level transport protocol doesn’t know about the application semantics, so the only way to go, really, is up. And if we assume that any guarantees will eventually give out, we have to account for that at the business level. To quote from a related article, “if reliability is important on the business level, do it on the business level.” It’s important not to conflate the transport protocol with the business-transaction protocol.

This is why systems like Akka don’t provide a notion of guaranteed delivery—because what does “guaranteed delivery” actually mean? Does it mean the message was handed to the transport layer? Does it mean the remote machine received the message? Does it mean the message was enqueued in the recipient’s mailbox?  Does it mean the recipient has started processing it? Does it mean the recipient has finished processing it? Each of these things has a very different set of requirements, constraints, and costs. Also, what does it even mean for a message to be “processed”? It depends on the business context. As such, it usually doesn’t make sense for the underlying infrastructure to make these decisions because the decisions usually impact the layers above significantly.

By providing only basic guarantees those use cases which do not need stricter guarantees do not pay the cost of their implementation; it is always possible to add stricter guarantees on top of basic ones, but it is not possible to retro-actively remove guarantees in order to gain more performance.

Distributed computation is inherently asynchronous and the network is inherently unreliable, so it’s better to embrace this asynchrony than to build on leaky abstractions. Rather than hide these inconveniences, make them explicit and force users to design around them. What you end up with is a more robust, more reliable, and often more performant system. This trade-off is highlighted in the paper “Exactly-once semantics in a replicated messaging system” by Huang et al. while studying the problem of exactly-once delivery:

Thus, server-centric algorithms cannot achieve exactly-once semantics. Instead, we will strive to achieve a weaker notion of correctness.

By relaxing our requirements, we end up with a solution that has less performance overhead and less complexity. Why bother pursuing the impossible? You’re paying a huge premium for something which is probably less reliable than you think while performing poorly. In many cases, it’s better to let the pendulum swing the other direction.

The network is not reliable, which means message delivery is never truly guaranteed—it can only be best-effort. The Two Generals’ Problem shows that it’s provenly impossible for two remote processes to safely agree on a decision. Similarly, the FLP impossibility result shows that, in an asynchronous environment, reliable failure detection is impossible. That is, there’s no way to tell if a process has crashed or is simply taking a long time to respond. Therefore, if it’s possible for a process to crash, it’s impossible for a set of processes to come to an agreement.

If message delivery is not guaranteed and consensus is impossible, is message ordering really that important? Some use cases might actually demand it, but I suspect, more often than not, it’s an artificial constraint. The fact that the network is unreliable, processes are faulty, and distributed communication is asynchronous makes reliable, in-order delivery surprisingly expensive. But doesn’t TCP solve this problem? At the transport level, yes, but that only gets you so far as I’ve been trying to demonstrate.

So you use TCP and process messages with a single thread. Most of the time, it just works. But what happens under heavy load? What happens when message delivery fails? What happens when you need to scale? If you are queuing messages or you have a dead-letter queue or you have network partitions or a crash-recovery model, you’re probably going to encounter duplicate, dropped, or out-of-order messages. Even if the infrastructure provides ordered delivery, these problems will likely manifest themselves at the application level.

If you’re distributed, forget about ordering and start thinking about commutativity. Forget about guaranteed delivery and start thinking about idempotence. Stop thinking about the messaging platform and start thinking about the messaging patterns and business semantics. A pattern which is commutative and idempotent will be far less brittle and more efficient than a system which is totally ordered and “guaranteed.” This is why CRDTs are becoming increasingly popular in the distributed space. Never write code which assumes messages will arrive in order when you can’t write code that will assume they arrive at all.

In the end, think carefully about the business case and what your requirements really are. Can you satisfy them without relying on costly and leaky abstractions or deceptive guarantees? If you can’t, what happens when those guarantees go out the window? This is very similar to understanding what happens when a SLA is not met. Are the performance and complexity trade-offs worth it? What about the operations and business overheads? In my experience, it’s better to confront the intricacies of distributed systems head-on than to sweep them under the rug. Sooner or later, they will rear their ugly heads.

Designed to Fail

When it comes to reliability engineering, people often talk about things like fault injection, monitoring, and operations runbooks. These are all critical pieces for building systems which can withstand failure, but what’s less talked about is the need to design systems which deliberately fail.

Reliability design has a natural progression which closely follows that of architectural design. With monolithic systems, we care more about preventing failure from occurring. With service-oriented architectures, controlling failure becomes less manageable, so instead we learn to anticipate it. With highly distributed microservice architectures where failure is all but guaranteed, we embrace it.

What does it mean to embrace failure? Anticipating failure is understanding the behavior when things go wrong, building systems to be resilient to it, and having a game plan for when it happens, either manual or automated. Embracing failure means making a conscious decision to purposely fail, and it’s essential for building highly available large-scale systems.

A microservice architecture typically means a complex web of service dependencies. One of SOA’s goals is to isolate failure and allow for graceful degradation. The key to being highly available is learning to be partially available. Frequently, one of the requirements for partial availability is telling the client “no.” Outright rejecting service requests is often better than allowing them to back up because, when dealing with distributed services, the latter usually results in cascading failure across dependent systems.

While designing our distributed messaging service at Workiva, we made explicit decisions to drop messages on the floor if we detect the system is becoming overloaded. As queues become backed up, incoming messages are discarded, a statsd counter is incremented, and a backpressure notification is sent to the client. Upon receiving this notification, the client can respond accordingly by failing fast, exponentially backing off, or using some other flow-control strategy. By bounding resource utilization, we maintain predictable performance, predictable (and measurable) lossiness, and impede cascading failure.

Other techniques include building kill switches into service calls and routers. If an overloaded service is not essential to core business, we fail fast on calls to it to prevent availability or latency problems upstream. For example, a spam-detection service is not essential to an email system, so if it’s unavailable or overwhelmed, we can simply bypass it. Netflix’s Hystrix has a set of really nice patterns for handling this.

If we’re not careful, we can often be our own worst enemy. Many times, it’s our own internal services which cause the biggest DoS attacks on ourselves. By isolating and controlling it, we can prevent failure from becoming widespread and unpredictable. By building in backpressure mechanisms and other types of intentional “failure” modes, we can ensure better availability and reliability for our systems through graceful degradation. Sometimes it’s better to fight fire with fire and failure with failure.

Service-Disoriented Architecture

“You can have a second computer once you’ve shown you know how to use the first one.” -Paul Barham

The first rule of distributed systems is don’t distribute your system until you have an observable reason to. Teams break this rule on the regular. People have been talking about service-oriented architecture for a long time, but only recently have microservices been receiving the hype.

The problem, as Martin Fowler observes, is that teams are becoming too eager to adopt a microservice architecture without first understanding the inherent overheads. A contributing factor, I think, is you only hear the success stories from companies who did it right, like Netflix. However, what folks often fail to realize is that these companies—in almost all cases—didn’t start out that way. There was a long and winding path which led them to where they are today. The inverse of this, which some refer to as microservice envy, is causing teams to rush into microservice hell. I call this service-disoriented architecture (or sometimes disservice-oriented architecture when the architecture is DOA).

The term “monolith” has a very negative connotation—unscalable, unmaintainable, unresilient. These things are not intrinsically tied to each other, however, and there’s no reason a single system can’t be modular, maintainable, and fault tolerant at reasonable scale. It’s just less sexy. Refactoring modular code is much easier than refactoring architecture, and refactoring across service boundaries is equally difficult. Fowler describes this as monolith-first, and I think it’s the right approach (with some exceptions, of course).

Don’t even consider microservices unless you have a system that’s too complex to manage as a monolith. The majority of software systems should be built as a single monolithic application. Do pay attention to good modularity within that monolith, but don’t try to separate it into separate services.

Service-oriented architecture is about organizational complexity and system complexity. If you have both, you have a case to distribute. If you have one of the two, you might have a case (although if you have organizational complexity without system complexity, you’ve probably scaled your organization improperly). If you have neither, you do not have a case to distribute. State, specifically distributed state, is hell, and some pundits argue SOA is satan—perhaps a necessary evil.

There are a lot of motivations for microservices: anti-fragility, fault tolerance, independent deployment and scaling, architectural abstraction, and technology isolation. When services are loosely coupled, the system as a whole tends to be less fragile. When instances are disposable and stateless, services tend to be more fault tolerant because we can spin them up and down, balance traffic, and failover. When responsibility is divided across domain boundaries, services can be independently developed, deployed, and scaled while allowing the right tools to be used for each.

We also need to acknowledge the disadvantages. Adopting a microservice architecture does not automatically buy you anti-fragility. Distributed systems are incredibly precarious. We have to be aware of things like asynchrony, network partitions, node failures, and the trade-off between availability and data consistency. We have to think about resiliency but also the business and UX implications. We have to consider the boundaries of distributed systems like CAP and exactly-once delivery.

When distributing, the emphasis should be on resilience engineering and adopting loosely coupled, stateless components—not microservices for microservices’ sake. We need to view eventual consistency as a tool, not a side effect. The problem I see is that teams often end up with what is essentially a complex, distributed monolith. Now you have two problems. If you’re building a microservice which doesn’t make sense outside the context of another system or isn’t useful on its own, stop and re-evaluate. If you’re designing something to be fast and correct, realize that distributing it will frequently take away both.

Like anti-fragility, microservices do not automatically buy you better maintainability or even scalability. Adopting them requires the proper infrastructure and organization to be in place. Without these, you are bound to fail. In theory, they are intended to increase development velocity, but in many cases the microservice premium ends up slowing it down while creating organizational dependencies and bottlenecks.

There are some key things which must be in place in order for a microservice architecture to be successful: a proper continuous-delivery pipeline, competent DevOps and Ops teams, and prudent service boundaries, to name a few. Good monitoring is essential. It’s also important we have a thorough testing and integration story. This isn’t even considering the fundamental development complexities associated with SOA mentioned earlier.

The better strategy is a bottom-up approach. Start with a monolith or small set of coarse-grained services and work your way up. Make sure you have the data model right. Break out new, finer-grained services as you need to and as you become more confident in your ability to maintain and deploy discrete services. It’s largely about organizational momentum. A young company jumping straight to a microservice architecture is like a golf cart getting on the freeway.

Microservices offer a number of advantages, but for many companies they are a bit of a Holy Grail. Developers are always looking for a silver bullet, but there is always a cost. What we need to do is minimize this cost, and with microservices, this typically means easing our way into it rather than diving into the deep end. Team autonomy and rapid iteration are noble goals, but if we’re not careful, we can end up creating an impedance. Microservices require organization and system maturity. Otherwise, they end up being a premature architectural optimization with a lot of baggage. They end up creating a service-disoriented architecture.

Distributed Systems Are a UX Problem

Distributed systems are not strictly an engineering problem. It’s far too easy to assume a “backend” development concern, but the reality is there are implications at every point in the stack. Often the trade-offs we make lower in the stack in order to buy responsiveness bubble up to the top—so much, in fact, that it rarely doesn’t impact the application in some way. Distributed systems affect the user. We need to shift the focus from system properties and guarantees to business rules and application behavior. We need to understand the limitations and trade-offs at each level in the stack and why they exist. We need to assume failure and plan for recovery. We need to start thinking of distributed systems as a UX problem.

The Truth is Prohibitively Expensive

Stop relying on strong consistency. Coordination and distributed transactions are slow and inhibit availability. The cost of knowing the “truth” is prohibitively expensive for many applications. For that matter, what you think is the truth is likely just a partial or outdated version of it.

Instead, choose availability over consistency by making local decisions with the knowledge at hand and design the UX accordingly. By making this trade-off, we can dramatically improve the user’s experience—most of the time.

Failure Is an Option

There are a lot of problems with simultaneity in distributed computing. As Justin Sheehy describes it, there is no “now” when it comes to distributed systems—that article, by the way, is a must-read for every engineer, regardless of where they work in the stack.

While some things about computers are “virtual,” they still must operate in the physical world and cannot ignore the challenges of that world.

Even though computers operate in the real world, they are disconnected from it. Imagine an inventory system. It may place orders to its artificial heart’s desire, but if the warehouse burns down, there’s no fulfilling them. Even if the system is perfect, its state may be impossible. But the system is typically not perfect because the truth is prohibitively expensive. And not only do warehouses catch fire or forklifts break down, as rare as this may be, but computers fail and networks partition—and that’s far less rare.

The point is, stop trying to build perfect systems because one of two things will happen:

1. You have a false sense of security because you think the system is perfect, and it’s not.


2. You will never ship because perfection is out of reach or exorbitantly expensive.

Either case can be catastrophic, depending on the situation. With systems, failure is not only an option, it’s an inevitability, so let’s plan for it as such. We have a lot to gain by embracing failure. Eric Brewer articulated this idea in a recent interview:

So the general answer is you allow things to be inconsistent and then you find ways to compensate for mistakes, versus trying to prevent mistakes altogether. In fact, the financial system is actually not based on consistency, it’s based on auditing and compensation. They didn’t know anything about the CAP theorem, that was just the decision they made in figuring out what they wanted, and that’s actually, I think, the right decision.

We can look to ATMs, and banks in general, as the canonical example for how this works. When you withdraw money, the bank could choose to first coordinate your account, calculating your available balance at that moment in time, before issuing the withdrawal. But what happens when the ATM is temporarily disconnected from the bank? The bank loses out on revenue.

Instead, they make a calculated risk. They choose availability and compensate the risk of overdraft with interest and charges. Likewise, banks use double-entry bookkeeping to provide an audit trail. Every credit has a corresponding debit. Mistakes happen—accounts are debited twice, an account is credited without another being debited—the failure modes are virtually endless. But we audit and compensate, detect and recover. Banks are loosely coupled systems. Accountants don’t use erasers. Why should programmers?

When you find yourself saying “this is important data or people’s money, it has to be correct,” consider how the problem was solved before computers. Building on Quicksand by Dave Campbell and Pat Helland is a great read on this topic:

Whenever the authors struggle with explaining how to implement loosely-coupled solutions, we look to how things were done before computers. In almost every case, we can find inspiration in paper forms, pneumatic tubes, and forms filed in triplicate.

Consider the lost request and its idempotent execution. In the past, a form would have multiple carbon copies with a printed serial number on top of them. When a purchase-order request was submitted, a copy was kept in the file of the submitter and placed in a folder with the expected date of the response. If the form and its work were not completed by the expected date, the submitter would initiate an inquiry and ask to locate the purchase-order form in question. Even if the work was lost, the purchase-order would be resubmitted without modification to ensure a lack of confusion in the processing of the work. You wouldn’t change the number of items being ordered as that may cause confusion. The unique serial number on the top would act as a mechanism to ensure the work was not performed twice.

Computers allow us to greatly improve the user experience, but many of the same fail-safes still exist, just slightly rethought.

The idea of compensation is actually a common theme within distributed systems. The Saga pattern is a great example of this. Large-scale systems often have to coordinate resources across disparate services.  Traditionally, we might solve this problem using distributed transactions like two-phase commit. The problem with this approach is it doesn’t scale very well, it’s slow, and it’s not particularly fault tolerant. With 2PC, we have deadlock problems and even 3PC is still susceptible to network partitions.

Sagas split a long-lived transaction into individual, interleaved sub-transactions. Each sub-transaction in the sequence has a corresponding compensating transaction which reverses its effects. The compensating transactions must be idempotent so they can be safely retried. In the event of a partial execution, the compensating transactions are run and the Saga is effectively rolled back.

The commonly used example for Sagas is booking a trip. We need to ensure flight, car rental, and hotel are all booked or none are booked. If booking the flight fails, we cancel the hotel and car, etc. Sagas trade off atomicity for availability while still allowing us to manage failure, a common occurrence in distributed systems.

Compensation has a lot of applications as a UX principle because it’s really the only way to build loosely coupled, highly available services.

Calculated Recovery

Pat Helland describes computing as nothing more than “memories, guesses, and apologies.” Computers always have partial knowledge. Either there is a disconnect with the real world (warehouse is on fire) or there is a disconnect between systems (System A sold a Foo Widget but, unbeknownst to it, System B just sold the last one in inventory—oops!). Systems don’t make decisions, they make guesses. The guess might be good or it might be bad, but rarely is there certainty. We can wait to collect as much information as possible before making a guess, but it means progress can’t be made until the system is confident enough to do so.

Computers have memory. This means they remember facts they have learned and guesses they have made. Memories help systems make better guesses in the future, and they can share those memories with other systems to help in their guesses. We can store more memories at the cost of more money, and we can survey other systems’ memories at the cost of more latency.

It is a business decision how much money, latency, and energy should be spent on reducing forgetfulness. To make this decision, the costs of the increased probability of remembering should be weighed against the costs of occasionally forgetting stuff.

Generally speaking, the more forgetfulness we can tolerate, the more responsive our systems will be, provided we know how to handle the situations where something is forgotten.

Sooner or later, a system guesses wrong. It sucks. It might mean we lose out on revenue; the business isn’t happy. It might mean the user loses out on what they want; the customer isn’t happy. But we calculate the impact of these wrong guesses, we determine when the trade-offs do and don’t make sense, we compensate, and—when shit hits the fan—we apologize.

Business realities force apologies.  To cope with these difficult realities, we need code and, frequently, we need human beings to apologize. It is essential that businesses have both code and people to manage these apologies.

Distributed systems are as much about failure modes and recovery as they are about being operationally correct. It’s critical that we can recover gracefully when something goes wrong, and often that affects the UX.

We could choose to spend extraordinary amounts of money and countless man-hours laboring over a system which provides the reliability we want. We could construct a data center. We could deploy big, expensive machines. We could install redundant fiber and switches. We could drudge over infallible code. Or we could stop, think for a moment, and realize maybe “sorry” is a more effective alternative. Knowing when to make that distinction can be the difference between a successful business and a failed one. The implications of distributed systems may be wider reaching than you thought.

Go Is Unapologetically Flawed, Here’s Why We Use It

Go is decidedly polarizing. While many are touting their transition to Go, it has become equally fashionable to criticize and mock the language. As Bjarne Stroustrup so eloquently put it, “There are only two kinds of programming languages: those people always bitch about and those nobody uses.” This adage couldn’t be more true. I apologize in advance for what appears to be just another in a long line of diatribes. I’m not really sorry, though.

I normally don’t advocate promoting or condemning a particular programming language or pontificate on why it is or isn’t used within an organization. They’re just tools for a job.

Today I’m going to be a hypocrite. The truth is we should care about what language and technologies we use to build and standardize on, but those decisions should be local to an organization. We shouldn’t choose a technology because it worked for someone else. Chances are they had a very different problem, different set of requirements, different engineering culture. There are so many factors that go into “success”—technology is probably the least impactful. Someone else’s success doesn’t translate to your success. It’s not the technology that makes or breaks us, it’s how the technology is appropriated, among many other conflating elements.

Now that I’ve prefaced why you shouldn’t choose a technology because it’s trendy, I’m going to talk about why we use Go where I work—yes, that’s meant to be ironic. However, I’m also going to describe why the language is essentially flawed. As I’ve alluded to, there are countless blog posts and articles which describe the shortcomings of Go. On the one hand, I’m apprehensive this doesn’t contribute anything meaningful to the dialogue. On the other hand, I feel the dialogue is important and, when framed in the right context, constructive.

Simplicity Through Indignity

Go is refreshingly simple. It’s what drew me to the language in the first place, and I suspect others feel the same way. There’s a popular quote from Rob Pike which I think is worth reiterating:

The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.

Granted, it’s taken out of context, but on the surface this kind of does sound like Go is a disservice to intelligent programmers. However, there is value in pursuing a simple, yet powerful, lingua franca of backend systems. Any engineer, regardless of experience, can dive into virtually any codebase and quickly understand how something works. Unfortunately, the notion of programmers not understanding a “brilliant language” is a philosophy carried throughout Go, and it hinders productivity more than it helps.

We use Go because it’s boring. Previously, we worked almost exclusively with Python, and after a certain point, it becomes a nightmare. You can bend Python to your will. You can hack it, you can monkey patch it, and you can write remarkably expressive, terse code. It’s also remarkably difficult to maintain and slow. I think this is characteristic of statically and dynamically typed languages in general. Dynamic typing allows you to quickly build and iterate but lacks the static-analysis tooling needed for larger codebases and performance characteristics required for more real-time systems. In my mind, the curve tends to look something like this:

static vs dynamic 2

Of course, this isn’t particular to Go or Python. As highlighted above, there are a lot of questions you must ask when considering such a transition. Like I mentioned, languages are tools for a job. One might argue, then, why would a company settle on a single language? Use the right tool for the job! This is true in principle, but the reality is there are other factors to consider, the largest of which is momentum. When you commit to a language, you produce reusable libraries, APIs, tooling, and knowledge. If you “use the right tool for the job,” you end up pulling yourself in different directions and throwing away those things. If you’re Google scale, this is less of an issue. Most organizations aren’t Google scale. It’s a delicate balance when choosing a technology.

Go makes it easy to write code that is understandable. There’s no “magic” like many enterprise Java frameworks and none of the cute tricks you’ll find in most Python or Ruby codebases. The code is verbose but readable, unsophisticated but intelligible, tedious but predictable. But the pendulum swings too far. So far, in fact, that it sacrifices one of software development’s most sacred doctrines, Don’t Repeat Yourself, and it does so unapologetically.

The Untype System

To put it mildly, Go’s type system is impaired. It does not lend itself to writing quality, maintainable code at a large scale, which seems to be in stark contrast to the language’s ambitions. The type system is noble in theory, but in practice it falls apart rather quickly. Without generics, programmers are forced to either copy and paste code for each type, rely on code generation which is often clumsy and laborious, or subvert the type system altogether through reflection. Passing around interface{} harks back to the Java-pre-generics days of doing the same with Object. The code gets downright dopey if you want to write a reusable library.

The argument there, I suppose, is to rely on interfaces to specify the behavior needed in a function. In passing, this sounds reasonable, but again, it quickly falls apart for even the most trivial situations. Further, you can’t add methods to types from a different (or standard library) package. Instead, you must effectively alias or wrap the type with a new type, resulting in more boilerplate and code that generally takes longer to grok. You start to realize that Go isn’t actually all that great at what it sets out to accomplish in terms of fostering maintainable, large-scale codebases—boilerplate and code duplication abound. It’s 2015, why in the world are we still writing code like this:

Now repeat for uint32, uint64, int32, etc. In any other modern programming language, this would get you laughed out of a code review. In Go, no one seems to bat an eye, and the alternatives aren’t much better.

Interfaces in Go are interesting because they are implicitly implemented. There are advantages, such as implementing mocks and generally dealing with code you don’t own. They also can cause some subtle problems like accidental implementation. Just because a type matches the signature of an interface doesn’t mean it was intended to implement its contract. Not to mention the confusion caused by storing nil in an interface:

This is a common source of confusion. The basic answer is to never store something in an interface if you don’t expect the methods to be called on it. The language may allow it, but that violates the semantics of the interface. To expound, a nil value should usually not be stored in an interface unless it is of a type that has explicitly handled that case in its pointer-valued methods and has no value-receiver methods.

Go is designed to be simple, but that behavior isn’t simple to me. I know it’s tripped up many others. Another lurking danger to newcomers is the behavior around variable declarations and shadowing. It can cause some nasty bugs if you’re not careful.

Rules Are Meant to Be Broken, Just Not by You

Python relies on a notion of “we’re all consenting adults here.” This is great and all, but it starts to break down when you have to scale your organization. Go takes a very different approach which aligns itself with large development teams. Great! But it’s taken to the extreme, and the language seems to break many of its own rules, which can be both confusing and frustrating.

Go sort of supports generic functions as evidenced by its built-ins. You just can’t implement your own. Go sort of supports generic types as evidenced by slices, maps, and channels. You just can’t implement your own. Go sort of supports function overloading as evidenced again by its built-ins. You just can’t implement your own. Go sort of supports exceptions as evidenced by panic and recover. You just can’t implement your own. Go sort of supports iterators as evidenced by ranging on slices, maps, and channels. You just can’t implement your own.

There are other peculiar idiosyncrasies. Error handling is generally done by returning error values. This is fine, and I can certainly see the motivation coming from the abomination of C++ exceptions, but there are cases where Go doesn’t follow its own rule. For example, map lookups return two values: the value itself (or zero-value/nil if it doesn’t exist) and a boolean indicating if the key was in the map. Interestingly, we can choose to ignore the boolean value altogether—a syntax reserved for certain blessed types in the standard library. Type assertions and channel receives have equally curious behavior.

Another idiosyncrasy is adding an item to a channel which is closed. Instead of returning an error, or a boolean, or whatever, it panics. Perhaps because it’s considered a programmer error? I’m not sure. Either way, these behaviors seem inconsistent to me. I often find myself asking what the “idiomatic” approach would be when designing an API. Go could really use proper algebraic data types.

One of Go’s philosophies is “Share memory by communicating; don’t communicate by sharing memory.” This is another rule the standard library seems to break often. There are roughly 60 channels created in the standard library, excluding tests. If you look through the code, you’ll see that mutexes tend to be preferred and often perform better—more on this in a moment.

By the same token, Go actively discourages the use of the sync/atomic and unsafe packages. In fact, there have been indications sync/atomic would be removed if it weren’t for backward-compatibility requirements:

We want sync to be clearly documented and used when appropriate. We generally don’t want sync/atomic to be used at all…Experience has shown us again and again that very very few people are capable of writing correct code that uses atomic operations…If we had thought of internal packages when we added the sync/atomic package, perhaps we would have used that. Now we can’t remove the package because of the Go 1 guarantee.

Frankly, I’m not sure how you write performant data structures and algorithms without those packages. Performance is relative of course, but you need these primitives if you want to write anything which is lock-free. The irony is once you start writing highly concurrent things, which Go is generally considered good at, mutexes and channels tend to fall short performance-wise.

In actuality, to write high-performance Go, you end up throwing away many of the language’s niceties. Defers add overhead, interface indirection is expensive (granted, this is not unique to Go), and channels are, generally speaking, on the slowish side.

For being one of Go’s hallmarks, channels are a bit disappointing. As I already mentioned, the behavior of panicking on puts to a closed channel is problematic. What about cases where we have producers blocked on a put to a channel and another goroutine calls close on it? They panic. Other annoyances include not being able to peek into the channel or get more than one item from it, common operations on most blocking queues. I can live with that, but what’s harder to stomach are the performance implications, which I hinted at earlier. For this, I turn to my colleague and our resident performance nut, Dustin Hiatt:

Rarely do the Golang devs discuss channel performance, although rumblings were heard last time I was at Gophercon about not using defers or channels. You see, when Rob Pike makes the claim that you can use channels instead of locks, he’s not being entirely honest. Behind the scenes, channels are using locks to serialize access and provide threadsafety. So by using channels to synchronize access to memory, you are, in fact, using locks; locks wrapped in a threadsafe queue. So how do Go’s fancy locks compare to just using mutex’s from their standard library “sync” package? The following numbers were obtained by using Go’s builtin benchmarking functionality to serially call Put on a single set of their respective types.

BenchmarkSimpleSet-8 3000000 391 ns/op
BenchmarkSimpleChannelSet-8 1000000 1699 ns/op

This is with a buffered channel, what happens if we use unbuffered?

BenchmarkSimpleChannelSet-8  1000000          2252 ns/op

Yikes, with light or no multithreading, putting using the mutex is quite a bit faster (go version go1.4 linux/amd64). How well does it do in a multithreaded environment. The following numbers were obtained by inserting the same number of items, but doing so in 4 separate Goroutines to test how well channels do under contention.

BenchmarkSimpleSet-8 2000000 645 ns/op
BenchmarkChannelSimpleSet-8 2000000 913 ns/op
BenchmarkChannelSimpleSet-8 2000000 901 ns/op

Better, but the mutex is still almost 30% faster. Clearly, some of the channel magic is costing us here, and that’s without the extra mental overhead to prevent memory leaks. Golang felt the same way, I think, and that’s why in their standard libraries that get benchmarked, like “net/http,” you’ll almost never find channels, always mutexes.

Clearly, channels are not particularly great for workload throughput, and you’re typically better off using a lock-free ring buffer or even a synchronized queue. Channels as a unit of composition tend to fall short as well. Instead, they are better suited as a coordination pattern, a mechanism for signaling and timing-related code. Ultimately, you must use channels judiciously if you are sensitive to performance.

There are a lot of things in Go that sound great in theory and look neat in demos, but then you start writing real systems and go, “oh wait, that doesn’t actually work.” Once again, channels are a good example of this. The range keyword, which allows you to iterate over a data structure, is reserved to slices, maps, and channels. At first glance, it appears channels provide an elegant way to build your own iterators:

But upon closer inspection, we realize this approach is subtly broken. While it works, if we stop iterating, the loop adding items to the channel will block—the goroutine is leaked. Instead, we must push the onus onto the user to signal the iteration is finished. It’s far less elegant and prone to leaks if not used correctly—so much for channels and goroutines.

Goroutines are nice. They make it incredibly easy to spin off concurrent workers. They also make it incredibly easy to leak things. This shouldn’t be a problem for the intelligent programmer, but for Rob Pike’s beloved Googlers, they can be a double-edged sword.

Dependency Management in Practice

For being a language geared towards Google-sized projects, Go’s approach to managing dependencies is effectively nonexistent. For small projects with little-to-no dependencies, go get works great. But Go is a server language, and we typically have many dependencies which must be pinned to different versions. Go’s package structure and go get do not support this. Reproducible builds and dependency management continue to be a source of frustration for folks trying to build real software with it.

In fairness, dependency management is not an issue with the language per se, but to me, tooling is equally important as the language itself. Go doesn’t actually take an official stance on versioning:

“Go get” does not have any explicit concept of package versions. Versioning is a source of significant complexity, especially in large code bases, and we are unaware of any approach that works well at scale in a large enough variety of situations to be appropriate to force on all Go users. What “go get” and the larger Go toolchain do provide is isolation of packages with different import paths.

Fortunately, the tooling in this area is actively improving. I’m confident this problem can be solved in better ways, but the current state of the art will leave newcomers feeling uneasy.

A Community or a Carousel

Go has an increasingly vibrant community, but it’s profoundly stubborn. My biggest gripe is not with the language itself, but with the community’s seemingly us-versus-them mentality. You’re either with us or against us. It’s almost comical because it seems every criticism of the language, mine included, is prefixed with “I really like Go, but…” to ostensibly diffuse the situation. Parts of the community can seem religious, almost cult-like. The sheer mention of generics is now met with a hearty dismissal. It’s not the Go way.

The attitude of the decision making around the language is unfortunate, and I think Go could really take a page from Rust’s book with respect to its governance model. I agree entirely with the sentiment of “it is a poor craftsman who blames their tools,” but it is an even poorer craftsman who doesn’t choose the best tools at their disposal. I’m not partial to any of my tools. They’re a means to an end, but we should aim to improve them and make them more effective. Community should not breed complacency. With Go, I fear both are thriving.

Despite your hand wringing over the effrontery of Go’s designers to not include your prerequisite features, interest in Go is sky rocketing. Rather than finding new ways to hate a language for reasons that will not change, why not invest that time and join the growing number of programmers who are using the language to write real software today.

This is dangerous reasoning, and it hinders progress. Yes, programmers are using Go to write real software today. They were also writing real software with Java circa 2004. I write Go every day for a living. I work with smart people who do the same. Most of my open-source projects on GitHub are written in Go. I have invested countless hours into the language, so I feel qualified to point out its shortcomings. They are not irreparable, but let’s not just brush them off as people toying with Go and “finding ways to hate it”—it’s insulting and unproductive.

The Good Parts

Alas, Go is not beyond reproach. But at the same time, the language gets a lot of things right. The advantages of a single, self-contained binary are real, and compilation is fast. Coming from C or C++, the compilation speed is a big deal. Cross-compile allows you to target other platforms, and it’s getting even better with Go 1.5.

The garbage collector, while currently a pain point for performance-critical systems, is the focus of a lot of ongoing effort. Go 1.5 will bring about an improved garbage collector, and more enhancements—including generational techniques—are planned for the future. Compared to current cutting-edge garbage collectors like HotSpot, Go’s is still quite young—lots of room for improvement here.

Over the last couple of months, I dipped my toes back in Java. Along with C#, Java used to be my modus operandi. Going back gave me a newfound appreciation for Go’s composability. In Go, the language and libraries are designed to be composable, à la Unix. In Java, everyone brings their own walled garden of classes.

Java is really a ghastly language in retrospect. Even the simplest of tasks, like reading a file, require a wildly absurd amount of hoop-jumping. This is where Go’s simplicity nails it. Building a web application in Java generally requires an application server, which often puts you in J2EE-land. It’s not a place I recommend you visit. In contrast, building a web server in Go takes a couple lines of code using the standard library—no overhead whatsoever. I just wish Java shared some of its generics Kool-Aid. C# does generics even better, implementing them all the way down to the byte-code level without type erasure.

Beyond go get, Go’s toolchain is actually pretty good. Testing and benchmarking are built in, and the data-race detector is super handy for debugging race conditions in your myriad of goroutines. The gofmt command is brilliant—every language needs something like this—as are vet and godoc. Lastly, Go provides a solid set of profiling tools for analyzing memory, CPU utilization, and other runtime behavior. Sadly, CPU profiling doesn’t work on OSX due to a kernel bug.

Although channels and goroutines are not without their problems, Go is easily the best “concurrent” programming language I’ve used. Admittedly, I haven’t used Erlang, so I suspect that statement made some Erlangers groan. Combined with the select statement, channels allow you to solve some problems which would otherwise be solved in a much more crude manner.

Go fits into your stack as a language for backend services. With the work being done by Docker, CoreOS, HashiCorp, Google, and others, it clearly is becoming the language of Infrastructure as a Service, cloud orchestration, and DevOps as well. Go is not a replacement for C/C++ but a replacement for Java, Python, and the like—that much is clear.

Moving Forward

Ultimately, we use Go because it’s boring. We don’t use it because Google uses it. We don’t use it because it’s trendy. We use it because it’s no-frills and, hey, it usually gets the job done assuming you’ve found the right nail. But Go is still in its infancy and has a lot of room for growth and improvement.

I’m cautiously optimistic about Go’s future. I don’t consider myself a hater, I consider myself a hopeful. As it continues to gain a critical mass, I’m hopeful that the language will continue to improve but fearful of its relentless dogma. Go needs to let go of this attitude of “you don’t need that” or “it’s too complicated” or “programmers won’t know how to use it.” It’s toxic. It’s not all that different from your users requesting features after you release a product and telling those users they aren’t smart enough to use them. It’s not on your users, it’s on you to make the UX good.

A language can have considerable depth while still retaining its simplicity. I wish this were the ideal Go embraced, not one of negativity, of pessimism, of “no.” The question is not how can we protect developers from themselves, it’s how can we make them more productive? How can we enable them to solve problems? But just because people are solving problems with Go today does not mean we can’t do better. There is always room for improvement. There is never room for complacency.

My thanks to Dustin Hiatt for reviewing this and his efforts in benchmarking and profiling various parts of the Go runtime. It’s largely Dustin’s work that has helped pave the way for building performance-critical systems in Go.

Product Development is a Trust Fall

A couple weeks ago, Marty Cagan gave an outstanding talk at CraftConf on why products fail despite having great engineering teams. In it, he calls out many of the common mistakes made by teams, and I think there is an underlying theme: trust.

Product development is a trust fall. In order to be successful, a chain of trust must be established from the business all the way down to the engineers. If any point in that chain is compromised, the integrity of the product—and specifically its success—is put in jeopardy.

Engineers will innovate. Trust them. Engineers will discover requirements. Trust them. Engineers will identify risks. Trust them.

This trust must be symmetrical. The business must trust its product managers, who must trust the business. Product managers must trust the engineers, who must trust the product managers. Each level in this hierarchy must act as its own trust anchor. Trust is assumed, not derived. To say the opposite would imply your system of hiring and firing is fundamentally flawed. If you do not trust your teams, your teams will not trust you.

Engineers will prioritize. Trust them. Engineers will deliver. Trust them. Engineers will fail. Let them.

Product development is a trust fall. When you let go, your team will catch you. And when they don’t, they’ll pick you up, dust you off, and say, “we’ll make an adjustment.” Fail fast but recover faster. The more times you fall and hit the ground, the more adjustments we make. The quicker we repeat this process, the less time you spend on the ground. Shame on the teams that spend days, weeks, months planning their fall, ensuring everything is in place, only to find the ground has moved.

It’s inexcusable to say you fail fast when it’s really a slow, prolonged death in product, in technology, or in execution, yet it’s surprisingly common. In order to innovate, you have to fail first. In order to build an effective team, you have to fail first. In order to produce a successful product, you have to fail first. The number one fatal mistake teams make is not recognizing when they’ve failed or being too proud to admit it. This is what Agile is actually about. It’s not about roadmaps or requirements gathering or user stories or stand-ups. It’s about failing and adjusting, failing and adjusting, failing and adjusting. Agile is micro failure on a macro level. As Cagan remarks, the biggest visible distinguisher of a great team is no roadmap.

A roadmap is essentially dooming your team to get out a small number of things that will almost certainly—most of them—not work.

Developers need to be part of the ideation process from day one. The customer is usually wrong. They often don’t know what they want or what’s possible. Developers are invested in the technology and understand its capabilities and limitations. Trust them.

If you’re just using your developers to code, you’re only getting about half their value.

I’ve said it before but without a focused vision, a product will fail. Without embracing new ideas and technology, a company will become irrelevant. Developers must be closely involved with both aspects in order to be successful. Innovate, fail, adjust, deliver. Repeat.

Product development is a trust fall. The key is letting go.

CAP and the Illusion of Choice

The CAP theorem is widely discussed and often misunderstood within the world of distributed systems. It states that any networked, shared-data system can, at most, guarantee two of three properties: consistency, availability, and partition tolerance. I won’t go into detail on CAP since the literature is abundant, but the notion of “two of three”—while conceptually accessible—is utterly misleading. Brewer has indicated this, echoed by many more, but there still seems to be a lot of confusion when the topic is brought up. The bottom line is you can’t sacrifice partition tolerance, but it seems CAP is a bit more nuanced than that.

On the surface, CAP presents three categories of systems. CA implies one which maintains consistency and availability given a perfectly reliable network. CP provides consistency and partition tolerance at the expense of availability, and AP gives us availability and partition tolerance without linearizability. Clearly, CA suggests that the system guarantees consistency and availability only when there are no network partitions. However, to say that there will never be network partitions is blatantly dishonest. This is where the source of much confusion lies.

Partitions happen. They happen for countless reasons. Switches fail, NICs fail, link layers fail, servers fail, processes fail. Partitions happen even when systems don’t fail due to GC pauses or prolonged I/O latency for example. Let’s accept this as fact and move on. What this means is that a “CA” system is CA only until it’s not. Once that partition happens, all your assumptions and all your guarantees hit the fan in spectacular fashion. Where does this leave us?

At its core, CAP is about trade-offs, but it’s an exclusion principle. It tells us what our systems cannot do given the nature of reality. The distinction here is that not all systems fit nicely into these archetypes. If Jepsen has taught us anything, it’s that the majority of systems don’t fit into any of these categories, even when the designers state otherwise. CAP isn’t as black and white as people paint it.

There’s a really nice series on CAP written recently by Nicolas Liochon. It does an excellent job of explaining the terminology (far better than I could), which is often overloaded and misused, and it makes some interesting points. Nicolas suggests that CA should really be thought of as a specification for an operating range, while CP and AP are descriptions of behavior. I would tend to agree, but my concern is that this eschews the trade-off that must be made.

We know that we cannot avoid network partition. What if we specify our application like this: “this application does not handle network partition. If it happens, the application will be partly unavailable, the data may be corrupted, and you may have to fix the data manually.” In other words, we’re really asking to be CA here, but if a partition occurs we may be CP, or, if we are unlucky, both not available and not consistent.

As an operating range, CA basically means when a partition occurs, the system throws up its hands and says, “welp, see ya later!” If we specify that the system does not work well under network partitions, we’re saying partitions are outside its operating range. What good is a specification for a spaceship designed to fly the upper atmosphere of planet Terah when we’re down here on Earth? We live in a world where partitions are the norm, so surely we need to include them in our operating range. CA does specify an operating range, but it’s not one you can put in an SLA and hand to a customer. Colloquially, it’s just a mode of “undefined behavior”—the system is consistent and available—until it’s not.

CAP isn’t a perfect metaphor, but in my mind, it does a decent job of highlighting the fundamental trade-offs involved in building distributed systems. Either we have linearizable writes or we don’t. If we do, we can’t guarantee availability. It’s true that CAP seems to imply a binary choice between consistency and availability in the face of partitions. In fact, it’s not a binary choice. You have AP, CP, or None of the Above. The problem with None of the Above is that it’s difficult to reason about and even more difficult to define. Ultimately, it ends up being more an illusion of choice since we cannot sacrifice partition tolerance.

Writing Good Code

There’s no shortage of people preaching the importance of good code. Indeed, many make a career of it. The resources available are equally endless, but lately I’ve been wondering how to extract the essence of building high-quality systems into a shorter, more concise narrative. This is actually something I’ve thought about for a while, but I’m just now starting to formulate some ideas into a blog post. The ideas aren’t fully developed, but my hope is to flesh them out further in the future. You can talk about design patterns, abstraction, encapsulation, and cohesion until you’re blue in the face, but what is the essence of good code?

Like any other engineering discipline, quality control is a huge part of building software. This isn’t just ensuring that it “works”—it’s ensuring it works under the complete range of operating conditions, ensuring it’s usable, ensuring it’s maintainable, ensuring it performs well, and ensuring a number of other characteristics. Verifying it “works” is just a small part of a much larger picture. Anybody can write code that works, but there’s more to it than that. Software is more malleable than most other things. Not only does it require longevity, it requires giving in to that malleability. If it doesn’t, you end up with something that’s brittle and broken. Because of this, it’s vital we test for correctness and measure for quality.

SCRAP for Quality

Quality is a very subjective thing. How can one possibly measure it? Code complexity and static analysis tooling come to mind, and these are deservedly valued, but it really just scratches the surface. How do we narrow an immensely broad topic like “quality” into a set of tangible, quantifiable goals? This is really the crux of the problem, but we can start by identifying a sort of checklist or guidelines for writing software. This breaks that larger problem into smaller, more digestible pieces. The checklist I’ve come up with is called SCRAP, an acronym defined below. It’s unlikely to be comprehensive, but I think it covers most, if not all, of the key areas.

Scalability Plan for growth
Complexity Plan for humans
Resiliency Plan for failure
API Plan for integration
Performance Plan for execution

Each of these items is itself a blog post, so this is only a brief explanation. There is definitely overlap between some of these facets, and there are also multiple dimensions to some.

Scalability is a plan for growth—in code, in organization, in architecture, and in workload. Without it, you reach a point where your system falls over, whether it’s because of a growing userbase, a growing codebase, or any number of other reasons. It’s also worth pointing out that without the ‘S’, all you have is CRAP. This also helps illustrate some of the overlap between these areas of focus as it leads into Complexity, which is a plan for humans. Scalability is about technology scale and demand scale, but it’s also about people scale. As your team grows or as your company grows, how do you manage that growth at the code level?

Planning for people doesn’t just mean managing growth, it also means managing complexity. If code is overly complex, it’s difficult to maintain, it’s difficult to extend, and it’s difficult to fix. If systems are overly complex, they’re difficult to deploy, difficult to manage, and difficult to monitor. Plan for humans, not machines.

Resiliency is a strategy for fault tolerance. It’s a plan for failure. What happens when you crash? What happens when a service you depend on crashes? What happens when the database is unavailable? What happens when the network is unreliable? Systems of all kind need to be designed with the expectation of failure. If you’re not thinking about failure at the code level, you’re not thinking about it enough.

One thing you should be noticing is that “people” is a cross-cutting concern. After all, it’s people who design the systems, and it’s people who write the code. While API is a plan for integration, it’s people who integrate the pieces. This is about making your API a first-class citizen. It doesn’t matter if it’s an internal API, a library API, or a RESTful API. It doesn’t matter if it’s for first parties or third parties. As a programmer, your API is your user interface. It needs to be clean. It needs to be sensible. It needs to be well-documented. If those integration points aren’t properly thought out, the integration will be more difficult than it needs to be.

The last item on the checklist is Performance. I originally defined this as a plan for speed, but I realized there’s a lot more to performance than doing things fast. It’s about doing things well, which is why I call Performance a plan for execution. Again, this has some overlap with Resiliency and Scalability, but it’s also about measurement. It’s about benchmarking and profiling. It’s about testing at scale and under failure because testing in a vacuum doesn’t mean much. It’s about optimization.

This brings about the oft-asked question: how do I know when and where to optimize? While premature optimization might be the root of all evil, it’s not a universal law. Optimize along the critical path and outward from there only as necessary. The further you get from that critical path, the more wasted effort it’s going to end up being. It depreciates quickly, so don’t lose sight of your optimization ROI. This will enable you to ship quickly and ship quality code. But once you ship, you’re not done measuring! It’s more important than ever that you continue to measure in production. Use performance and usage-pattern data to drive intelligent decisions and intelligent iteration. The payoff is that this doesn’t just apply to code decisions, it applies to all decisions. This is where the real value of measuring comes through. Decisions that aren’t backed by data aren’t decisions, they’re impulses. Don’t be impulsive, be empirical.

Going Forward

There is work to be done with respect to quantifying the items on this checklist. However, I strongly suspect even just thinking about them, formally or informally, will improve the overall quality of your code by an equally-unmeasurable order of magnitude. If your code doesn’t pass this checklist, it’s tech debt. Sometimes that’s okay, but remember that tech debt has compounding interest. If you don’t pay it off, you will eventually go bankrupt.

It’s not about being a 10x developer. It’s about being a 1x developer who writes 10x code. By that I mean the quality of your code is far more important than its quantity. Quality will outlast and outperform quantity. These guidelines tend to have a ripple effect. Legacy code often breeds legacy-like code. Instilling these rules in your developer culture helps to make engineers cognizant of when they should break the mold, introduce new patterns, or improve existing ones. Bad code begets bad code, and bad code is the atrophy of good developers.

You Cannot Have Exactly-Once Delivery

I’m often surprised that people continually have fundamental misconceptions about how distributed systems behave. I myself shared many of these misconceptions, so I try not to demean or dismiss but rather educate and enlighten, hopefully while sounding less preachy than that just did. I continue to learn only by following in the footsteps of others. In retrospect, it shouldn’t be surprising that folks buy into these fallacies as I once did, but it can be frustrating when trying to communicate certain design decisions and constraints.

Within the context of a distributed system, you cannot have exactly-once message delivery. Web browser and server? Distributed. Server and database? Distributed. Server and message queue? Distributed. You cannot have exactly-once delivery semantics in any of these situations.

As I’ve described in the past, distributed systems are all about trade-offs. This is one of them. There are essentially three types of delivery semantics: at-most-once, at-least-once, and exactly-once. Of the three, the first two are feasible and widely used. If you want to be super anal, you might say at-least-once delivery is also impossible because, technically speaking, network partitions are not strictly time-bound. If the connection from you to the server is interrupted indefinitely, you can’t deliver anything. Practically speaking, you have bigger fish to fry at that point—like calling your ISP—so we consider at-least-once delivery, for all intents and purposes, possible. With this model of thinking, network partitions are finitely bounded in time, however arbitrary this may be.

So where does the trade-off come into play, and why is exactly-once delivery impossible? The answer lies in the Two Generals thought experiment or the more generalized Byzantine Generals Problem, which I’ve looked at extensively. We must also consider the FLP result, which basically says, given the possibility of a faulty process, it’s impossible for a system of processes to agree on a decision.

In the letter I mail you, I ask you to call me once you receive it. You never do. Either you really didn’t care for my letter or it got lost in the mail. That’s the cost of doing business. I can send the one letter and hope you get it, or I can send 10 letters and assume you’ll get at least one of them. The trade-off here is quite clear (postage is expensive!), but sending 10 letters doesn’t really provide any additional guarantees. In a distributed system, we try to guarantee the delivery of a message by waiting for an acknowledgement that it was received, but all sorts of things can go wrong. Did the message get dropped? Did the ack get dropped? Did the receiver crash? Are they just slow? Is the network slow? Am slow? FLP and the Two Generals Problem are not design complexities, they are impossibility results.

People often bend the meaning of “delivery” in order to make their system fit the semantics of exactly-once, or in other cases, the term is overloaded to mean something entirely different. State-machine replication is a good example of this. Atomic broadcast protocols ensure messages are delivered reliably and in order. The truth is, we can’t deliver messages reliably and in order in the face of network partitions and crashes without a high degree of coordination. This coordination, of course, comes at a cost (latency and availability), while still relying on at-least-once semantics. Zab, the atomic broadcast protocol which lays the foundation for ZooKeeper, enforces idempotent operations.

State changes are idempotent and applying the same state change multiple times does not lead to inconsistencies as long as the application order is consistent with the delivery order. Consequently, guaranteeing at-least once semantics is sufficient and simplifies the implementation.

“Simplifies the implementation” is the authors’ attempt at subtlety. State-machine replication is just that, replicating state. If our messages have side effects, all of this goes out the window.

We’re left with a few options, all equally tenuous. When a message is delivered, it’s acknowledged immediately before processing. The sender receives the ack and calls it a day. However, if the receiver crashes before or during its processing, that data is lost forever. Customer transaction? Sorry, looks like you’re not getting your order. This is the worldview of at-most-once delivery. To be honest, implementing at-most-once semantics is more complicated than this depending on the situation. If there are multiple workers processing tasks or the work queues are replicated, the broker must be strongly consistent (or CP in CAP theorem parlance) so as to ensure a task is not delivered to any other workers once it’s been acked. Apache Kafka uses ZooKeeper to handle this coordination.

On the other hand, we can acknowledge messages after they are processed. If the process crashes after handling a message but before acking (or the ack isn’t delivered), the sender will redeliver. Hello, at-least-once delivery. Furthermore, if you want to deliver messages in order to more than one site, you need an atomic broadcast which is a huge burden on throughput. Fast or consistent. Welcome to the world of distributed systems.

Every major message queue in existence which provides any guarantees will market itself as at-least-once delivery. If it claims exactly-once, it’s because they are lying to your face in hopes that you will buy it or they themselves do not understand distributed systems. Either way, it’s not a good indicator.

RabbitMQ attempts to provide guarantees along these lines:

When using confirms, producers recovering from a channel or connection failure should retransmit any messages for which an acknowledgement has not been received from the broker. There is a possibility of message duplication here, because the broker might have sent a confirmation that never reached the producer (due to network failures, etc). Therefore consumer applications will need to perform deduplication or handle incoming messages in an idempotent manner.

The way we achieve exactly-once delivery in practice is by faking it. Either the messages themselves should be idempotent, meaning they can be applied more than once without adverse effects, or we remove the need for idempotency through deduplication. Ideally, our messages don’t require strict ordering and are commutative instead. There are design implications and trade-offs involved with whichever route you take, but this is the reality in which we must live.

Rethinking operations as idempotent actions might be easier said than done, but it mostly requires a change in the way we think about state. This is best described by revisiting the replicated state machine. Rather than distributing operations to apply at various nodes, what if we just distribute the state changes themselves? Rather than mutating state, let’s just report facts at various points in time. This is effectively how Zab works.

Imagine we want to tell a friend to come pick us up. We send him a series of text messages with turn-by-turn directions, but one of the messages is delivered twice! Our friend isn’t too happy when he finds himself in the bad part of town. Instead, let’s just tell him where we are and let him figure it out. If the message gets delivered more than once, it won’t matter. The implications are wider reaching than this, since we’re still concerned with the ordering of messages, which is why solutions like commutative and convergent replicated data types are becoming more popular. That said, we can typically solve this problem through extrinsic means like sequencing, vector clocks, or other partial-ordering mechanisms. It’s usually causal ordering that we’re after anyway. People who say otherwise don’t quite realize that there is no now in a distributed system.

To reiterate, there is no such thing as exactly-once delivery. We must choose between the lesser of two evils, which is at-least-once delivery in most cases. This can be used to simulate exactly-once semantics by ensuring idempotency or otherwise eliminating side effects from operations. Once again, it’s important to understand the trade-offs involved when designing distributed systems. There is asynchrony abound, which means you cannot expect synchronous, guaranteed behavior. Design for failure and resiliency against this asynchronous nature.