Skip to main content

Release It - Highlights Part 1

Release It! is one of the most useful books I've read. The advice and suggestions inside certainly change your perspective on how to write software. My key takeaway is that software should be cynical. Expect the worst, expect failures and put up boundaries. In the majority of cases these failures will be trigged by integration points with other systems, be it third parties or your own.

My rough notes and snippets will be spread across the following two posts. There is much more to the book than this, including various examples of real life systems failing and how they should have handled the problem in the first place.


Shared Resources

  • Shared Resources can jeopardize scalability.
  • When a shared resource gets overloaded, it will become a bottleneck.
  • If you provide the front end system, test what happens if the back end is slow/down. If you provide the back end, test what happens if the front end is under heavy load.

Responses

  • Generating a slow response is worse than refusing to connect or timing out.
  • Slow responses trigger cascading failures.
  • Slow responses on the front end trigger more requests. Such as the user hitting refresh a few times, therefore generating more load ironically.
  • You should error when a response exceeds the systems allowed time, rather than waiting.
  • Most default timeouts of libraries and frameworks are far too generous - always configure manually.
  • One of the worst places that scaling effects will bite you is with point to point communication. Favour other alternatives such as messaging to remove this problem.

SLA

  • When calling third parties, services levels only decrease.
  • Make sure even without a third party response your system can degrade gracefully.
  • Be careful when crafting SLA's. Do not simply state 99.999%, it costs too much to hit this target and most systems don't need this sort of uptime.
  • Reorient the discussion around SLA's to focus on features, not systems.
  • You cannot offer a better SLA than the worst of any external dependencies you use.

Databases

  • Your application probably trusts the database far too much.
  • Design with scepticism and you will achieve resilience.
  • What happens if the DB returns 5 million rows instead of 5 hundred? You could run out of memory trying to load all this. The only answers a query can return is 0, 1 or many. Don't rely on the database to follow this limit. Other systems or batch processes may not respect this rule and insert too much data.
  • After a system is in production, fetch results can return huge result sets. Unlike developer testing where only a small subset of data is around.
  • Limit your DB queries, e.g. SELECT * FROM table LIMIT 15 (the wildcard criteria would be substituted)
  • Put limits into other application protocols such REST endpoints via paging or offsets.

Circuit Breakers

  • Now and forever networks will always be unreliable.
  • The timeout pattern prevents calls to integration points from becoming blocked threads.
  • Circuit Breakers area way of automatically degrading functionality when a system is under stress.
  • Changes in a circuit breaker should always be logged and monitored.
  • The frequency of state changes in a circuit breaker can help diagnose other problems with the system.
  • When there is a problem with an integration point, stop calling it during a cool off period. The circuit breaker will enable this.
  • Popping a circuit breaker always indicates a serious problem - log it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…

Coding In the Real World

As a student when confronted with a problem, I would end up coding it and thinking - how do the professionals do this?For some reason I had the impression that once I entered the industry I would find enlightenment. Discovering the one true way to write high quality, professional code.It turns out that code in industry is not too far removed from the code I was writing back when I knew very little.Code in the real world can be:messy or cleanhard or easy to understandsimple or complexeasy or hard to changeor any combination of the aboveVery rarely will you be confronted with a problem that is difficult. Most challenges typically are formed around individuals and processes, rather than day to day coding. Years later I finally have the answer. Code in the real world is not that much different to code we were all writing when we first started out.If I could offer myself some advice back in those early days it would be to follow KISS, YAGNI and DRY religiously. The rest will fall into plac…

Feature Toggles

I'm a fan of regular releasing. My background and experience leads me to release as regularly as possible. There are numerous benefits to regular releases; limited risk, slicker release processes and the ability to change as requirements evolve.The problem with this concept is how can you release when features are not functionally complete?SolutionIf there is still work in progress, one solution to allow frequent releases is to use feature toggles. Feature toggles are simple conditional statements that are either enabled or disabled based on some condition.This simple example shows a feature toggle for an "Edit User" feature. If the boolean condition is false, then we only show the "New User" feature and the "Admin" feature. This boolean value will be provided by various means, usually a configuration file. This means at certain points we can change this value in order to demonstrate the "Edit User" functionality. Our demo environment could …

Reused Abstraction Principle

This is the second part of my series on abstractions.Part 1 - AbstractionsPart 3 - Dependency Elimination PrincipleThe Reused Abstraction Principle is a simple in concept in practice, but oddly rarely followed in typical enterprise development. I myself have been incredibly guilty of this in the past.Most code bases have a 1:1 mapping of interfaces to implementations. Usually this is the sign of TDD or automated testing being applied badly. The majority of these interfaces are wrong. 1:1 mappings between interfaces and implementations is a code smell.Such situations are usually the result of extracting an interface from an implementation, rather than having the client drive behaviour.These interfaces are also often bad abstractions, known as "leaky abstractions". As I've discussed previously, these abstractions tend to offer nothing more than simple indirection.ExampleApply the "rule of three". If there is only ever one implementation, then you don't need …