---
title: "2. Defining Nonfunctional Requirements"
weight: 102
breadcrumbs: false
---

> *The Internet was done so well that most people think of it as a natural resource like the Pacific
> Ocean, rather than something that was man-made. When was the last time a technology with a scale
> like that was so error-free?*
>
> [Alan Kay](https://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/interview-with-alan-kay/240003442),
> in interview with *Dr Dobb’s Journal* (2012)

If you are building an application, you will be driven by a list of requirements. At the top of your
list is most likely the functionality that the application must offer: what screens and what buttons
you need, and what each operation is supposed to do in order to fulfill the purpose of your
software. These are your *functional requirements*.

In addition, you probably also have some *nonfunctional requirements*: for example, the app should
be fast, reliable, secure, legally compliant, and easy to maintain. These requirements might not be
explicitly written down, because they may seem somewhat obvious, but they are just as important as
the app’s functionality: an app that is unbearably slow or unreliable might as well not exist.

Many nonfunctional requirements, such as security, fall outside the scope of this book. But there
are a few nonfunctional requirements that we will consider, and this chapter will help you
articulate them for your own systems:

* How to define and measure the *performance* of a system (see [“Describing Performance”](/en/ch2#sec_introduction_percentiles));
* What it means for a service to be *reliable*—namely, continuing to work correctly, even when
 things go wrong (see [“Reliability and Fault Tolerance”](/en/ch2#sec_introduction_reliability));
* Allowing a system to be *scalable* by having efficient ways of adding computing
 capacity as the load on the system grows (see [“Scalability”](/en/ch2#sec_introduction_scalability)); and
* Making it easier to maintain a system in the long term (see [“Maintainability”](/en/ch2#sec_introduction_maintainability)).

The terminology introduced in this chapter will also be useful in the following chapters, when we go
into the details of how data-intensive systems are implemented. However, abstract definitions can be
quite dry; to make the ideas more concrete, we will start this chapter with a case study of how a
social networking service might work, which will provide practical examples of performance and
scalability.

## Case Study: Social Network Home Timelines

Imagine you are given the task of implementing a social network in the style of X (formerly
Twitter), in which users can post messages and follow other users. This will be a huge
simplification of how such a service actually works [^1] [^2] [^3],
but it will help illustrate some of the issues that arise in large-scale systems.

Let’s assume that users make 500 million posts per day, or 5,700 posts per second on average.
Occasionally, the rate can spike as high as 150,000 posts/second [^4].
Let’s also assume that the average user follows 200 people and has 200 followers (although there is
a very wide range: most people have only a handful of followers, and a few celebrities such as
Barack Obama have over 100 million followers).

### Representing Users, Posts, and Follows

Imagine we keep all of the data in a relational database as shown in [Figure 2-1](/en/ch2#fig_twitter_relational). We
have one table for users, one table for posts, and one table for follow relationships.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0201.png" id="fig_twitter_relational" caption="Figure 2-1. Simple relational schema for a social network in which users can follow each other." class="w-full my-4" >}}

Let’s say the main read operation that our social network must support is the *home timeline*, which
displays recent posts by people you are following (for simplicity we will ignore ads, suggested
posts from people you are not following, and other extensions). We could write the following SQL
query to get the home timeline for a particular user:

```sql
SELECT posts.*, users.* FROM posts
    JOIN follows ON posts.sender_id = follows.followee_id
    JOIN users ON posts.sender_id = users.id
    WHERE follows.follower_id = current_user
    ORDER BY posts.timestamp DESC
    LIMIT 1000
```

To execute this query, the database will use the `follows` table to find everybody who
`current_user` is following, look up recent posts by those users, and sort them by timestamp to get
the most recent 1,000 posts by any of the followed users.

Posts are supposed to be timely, so let’s assume that after somebody makes a post, we want their
followers to be able to see it within 5 seconds. One way of doing that would be for the user’s
client to repeat the query above every 5 seconds while the user is online (this is known as
*polling*). If we assume that 10 million users are online and logged in at the same time, that would
mean running the query 2 million times per second. Even if you increase the polling interval, this
is a lot.

Moreover, the query above is quite expensive: if you are following 200 people, it needs to fetch a
list of recent posts by each of those 200 people, and merge those lists. 2 million timeline queries
per second then means that the database needs to look up the recent posts from some sender 400
million times per second—a huge number. And that is the average case. Some users follow tens of
thousands of accounts; for them, this query is very expensive to execute, and difficult to make
fast.

### Materializing and Updating Timelines

How can we do better? Firstly, instead of polling, it would be better if the server actively pushed
new posts to any followers who are currently online. Secondly, we should precompute the results of
the query above so that a user’s request for their home timeline can be served from a cache.

Imagine that for each user we store a data structure containing their home timeline, i.e., the
recent posts by people they are following. Every time a user makes a post, we look up all of their
followers, and insert that post into the home timeline of each follower—like delivering a message to
a mailbox. Now when a user logs in, we can simply give them this home timeline that we precomputed.
Moreover, to receive a notification about any new posts on their timeline, the user’s client simply
needs to subscribe to the stream of posts being added to their home timeline.

The downside of this approach is that we now need to do more work every time a user makes a post,
because the home timelines are derived data that needs to be updated. The process is illustrated in
[Figure 2-2](/en/ch2#fig_twitter_timelines). When one initial request results in several downstream requests being
carried out, we use the term *fan-out* to describe the factor by which the number of requests
increases.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0202.png" id="fig_twitter_timelines" caption="Figure 2-2. Fan-out: delivering new posts to every follower of the user who made the post." class="w-full my-4" >}}


At a rate of 5,700 posts posted per second, if the average post reaches 200 followers (i.e., a
fan-out factor of 200), we will need to do just over 1 million home timeline writes per second. This
is a lot, but it’s still a significant saving compared to the 400 million per-sender post lookups
per second that we would otherwise have to do.

If the rate of posts spikes due to some special event, we don’t have to do the timeline
deliveries immediately—we can enqueue them and accept that it will temporarily take a bit longer for
posts to show up in followers’ timelines. Even during such load spikes, timelines remain fast to
load, since we simply serve them from a cache.

This process of precomputing and updating the results of a query is called *materialization*, and
the timeline cache is an example of a *materialized view* (a concept we will discuss further in
[Link to Come]). The materialized view speeds up reads, but in return we have to do more work on
write. The cost of writes for most users is modest, but a social network also has to consider some
extreme cases:

* If a user is following a very large number of accounts, and those accounts post a lot, that user
 will have a high rate of writes to their materialized timeline. However, in this case it’s
 unlikely that the user is actually reading all of the posts in their timeline, and therefore it’s
 okay to simply drop some of their timeline writes and show the user only a sample of the posts
 from the accounts they’re following
 [^5].
* When a celebrity account with a very large number of followers makes a post, we have to do a large
 amount of work to insert that post into the home timelines of each of their millions of followers.
 In this case it’s not okay to drop some of those writes. One way of solving this problem is to
 handle celebrity posts separately from everyone else’s posts: we can save ourselves the effort of
 adding them to millions of timelines by storing the celebrity posts separately and merging them
 with the materialized timeline when it is read. Despite such optimizations, handling celebrities
 on a social network can require a lot of infrastructure
 [^6].

## Describing Performance

Most discussions of software performance consider two main types of metric:

Response time
: The elapsed time from the moment when a user makes a request until they receive the requested
 answer. The unit of measurement is seconds (or milliseconds, or microseconds).

Throughput
: The number of requests per second, or the data volume per second, that the system is processing.
 For a given allocation of hardware resources, there is a *maximum throughput* that can be handled.
 The unit of measurement is “somethings per second”.

In the social network case study, “posts per second” and “timeline writes per second” are throughput
metrics, whereas the “time it takes to load the home timeline” or the “time until a post is
delivered to followers” are response time metrics.

There is often a connection between throughput and response time; an example of such a relationship
for an online service is sketched in [Figure 2-3](/en/ch2#fig_throughput). The service has a low response time when
request throughput is low, but response time increases as load increases. This is because of
*queueing*: when a request arrives on a highly loaded system, it’s likely that the CPU is already in
the process of handling an earlier request, and therefore the incoming request needs to wait until
the earlier request has been completed. As throughput approaches the maximum that the hardware can
handle, queueing delays increase sharply.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0203.png" id="fig_throughput" caption="Figure 2-3. As the throughput of a service approaches its capacity, the response time increases dramatically due to queueing." class="w-full my-4" >}}


--------

> [!TIP] WHEN AN OVERLOADED SYSTEM WON'T RECOVER

If a system is close to overload, with throughput pushed close to the limit, it can sometimes enter a
vicious cycle where it becomes less efficient and hence even more overloaded. For example, if there
is a long queue of requests waiting to be handled, response times may increase so much that clients
time out and resend their request. This causes the rate of requests to increase even further, making
the problem worse—a *retry storm*. Even when the load is reduced again, such a system may remain in
an overloaded state until it is rebooted or otherwise reset. This phenomenon is called a *metastable
failure*, and it can cause serious outages in production systems [^7] [^8].

To avoid retries overloading a service, you can increase and randomize the time between successive
retries on the client side (*exponential backoff* [^9] [^10]), and temporarily stop sending requests to a service that has returned errors or timed out recently
(using a *circuit breaker* [^11] [^12] or *token bucket* algorithm [^13]).
The server can also detect when it is approaching overload and start proactively rejecting requests
(*load shedding* [^14]), and send back responses asking clients to slow down (*backpressure* [^1] [^15]).
The choice of queueing and load-balancing algorithms can also make a difference [^16].

--------

In terms of performance metrics, the response time is usually what users care about the most,
whereas the throughput determines the required computing resources (e.g., how many servers you need),
and hence the cost of serving a particular workload. If throughput is likely to increase beyond what
the current hardware can handle, the capacity needs to be expanded; a system is said to be
*scalable* if its maximum throughput can be significantly increased by adding computing resources.

In this section we will focus primarily on response times, and we will return to throughput and
scalability in [“Scalability”](/en/ch2#sec_introduction_scalability).

### Latency and Response Time

“Latency” and “response time” are sometimes used interchangeably, but in this book we will use the
terms in a specific way (illustrated in [Figure 2-4](/en/ch2#fig_response_time)):

* The *response time* is what the client sees; it includes all delays incurred anywhere in the
 system.
* The *service time* is the duration for which the service is actively processing the user request.
* *Queueing delays* can occur at several points in the flow: for example, after a request is
 received, it might need to wait until a CPU is available before it can be processed; a response
 packet might need to be buffered before it is sent over the network if other tasks on the same
 machine are sending a lot of data via the outbound network interface.
* *Latency* is a catch-all term for time during which a request is not being actively processed,
 i.e., during which it is *latent*. In particular, *network latency* or *network delay* refers to
 the time that request and response spend traveling through the network.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0204.png" id="fig_response_time" caption="Figure 2-4. Response time, service time, network latency, and queueing delay." class="w-full my-4" >}}

In [Figure 2-4](/en/ch2#fig_response_time), time flows from left to right, each communicating node is shown as a
horizontal line, and a request or response message is shown as a thick diagonal arrow from one node
to another. You will encounter this style of diagram frequently over the course of this book.

The response time can vary significantly from one request to the next, even if you keep making the
same request over and over again. Many factors can add random delays: for example, a context switch
to a background process, the loss of a network packet and TCP retransmission, a garbage collection
pause, a page fault forcing a read from disk, mechanical vibrations in the server rack [^17],
or many other causes. We will discuss this topic in more detail in [“Timeouts and Unbounded Delays”](/en/ch9#sec_distributed_queueing).

Queueing delays often account for a large part of the variability in response times. As a server
can only process a small number of things in parallel (limited, for example, by its number of CPU
cores), it only takes a small number of slow requests to hold up the processing of subsequent
requests—an effect known as *head-of-line blocking*. Even if those subsequent requests have fast
service times, the client will see a slow overall response time due to the time waiting for the
prior request to complete. The queueing delay is not part of the service time, and for this reason
it is important to measure response times on the client side.

### Average, Median, and Percentiles

Because the response time varies from one request to the next, we need to think of it not as a
single number, but as a *distribution* of values that you can measure. In [Figure 2-5](/en/ch2#fig_lognormal), each
gray bar represents a request to a service, and its height shows how long that request took. Most
requests are reasonably fast, but there are occasional *outliers* that take much longer.
Variation in network delay is also known as *jitter*.

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0205.png" id="fig_lognormal" caption="Figure 2-5. Illustrating mean and percentiles: response times for a sample of 100 requests to a service." class="w-full my-4" >}}

It’s common to report the *average* response time of a service (technically, the *arithmetic mean*:
that is, sum all the response times, and divide by the number of requests). The mean response time
is useful for estimating throughput limits [^18].
However, the mean is not a very good metric if you want to know your “typical” response time,
because it doesn’t tell you how many users actually experienced that delay.

Usually it is better to use *percentiles*. If you take your list of response times and sort it from
fastest to slowest, then the *median* is the halfway point: for example, if your median response
time is 200 ms, that means half your requests return in less than 200 ms, and half your
requests take longer than that. This makes the median a good metric if you want to know how long
users typically have to wait. The median is also known as the *50th percentile*, and sometimes
abbreviated as *p50*.

In order to figure out how bad your outliers are, you can look at higher percentiles: the *95th*,
*99th*, and *99.9th* percentiles are common (abbreviated *p95*, *p99*, and *p999*). They are the
response time thresholds at which 95%, 99%, or 99.9% of requests are faster than that particular
threshold. For example, if the 95th percentile response time is 1.5 seconds, that means 95 out of
100 requests take less than 1.5 seconds, and 5 out of 100 requests take 1.5 seconds or more. This is
illustrated in [Figure 2-5](/en/ch2#fig_lognormal).

High percentiles of response times, also known as *tail latencies*, are important because they
directly affect users’ experience of the service. For example, Amazon describes response time
requirements for internal services in terms of the 99.9th percentile, even though it only affects 1
in 1,000 requests. This is because the customers with the slowest requests are often those who have
the most data on their accounts because they have made many purchases—that is, they’re the most
valuable customers [^19].
It’s important to keep those customers happy by ensuring the website is fast for them.

On the other hand, optimizing the 99.99th percentile (the slowest 1 in 10,000 requests) was deemed
too expensive and to not yield enough benefit for Amazon’s purposes. Reducing response times at very
high percentiles is difficult because they are easily affected by random events outside of your
control, and the benefits are diminishing.

--------

> [!TIP] THE USER IMPACT OF RESPONSE TIMES

It seems intuitively obvious that a fast service is better for users than a slow service [^20].
However, it is surprisingly difficult to get hold of reliable data to quantify the effect that
latency has on user behavior.

Some often-cited statistics are unreliable. In 2006 Google reported that a slowdown in search
results from 400 ms to 900 ms was associated with a 20% drop in traffic and revenue [^21].
However, another Google study from 2009 reported that a 400 ms increase in latency resulted in
only 0.6% fewer searches per day [^22],
and in the same year Bing found that a two-second increase in load time reduced ad revenue by 4.3% [^23].
Newer data from these companies appears not to be publicly available.

A more recent Akamai study [^24]
claims that a 100 ms increase in response time reduced the conversion rate of e-commerce sites
by up to 7%; however, on closer inspection, the same study reveals that very *fast* page load times
are also correlated with lower conversion rates! This seemingly paradoxical result is explained by
the fact that the pages that load fastest are often those that have no useful content (e.g., 404
error pages). However, since the study makes no effort to separate the effects of page content from
the effects of load time, its results are probably not meaningful.

A study by Yahoo [^25] compares click-through rates on fast-loading versus slow-loading search results, controlling for
quality of search results. It finds 20–30% more clicks on fast searches when the difference between
fast and slow responses is 1.25 seconds or more.

--------

### Use of Response Time Metrics

High percentiles are especially important in backend services that are called multiple times as
part of serving a single end-user request. Even if you make the calls in parallel, the end-user
request still needs to wait for the slowest of the parallel calls to complete. It takes just one
slow call to make the entire end-user request slow, as illustrated in [Figure 2-6](/en/ch2#fig_tail_amplification).
Even if only a small percentage of backend calls are slow, the chance of getting a slow call
increases if an end-user request requires multiple backend calls, and so a higher proportion of
end-user requests end up being slow (an effect known as *tail latency amplification* [^26]).

{{< figure src="/fig/ddia_0206.png" id="fig_tail_amplification" caption="Figure 2-6. When several backend calls are needed to serve a request, it takes just a single slow backend request to slow down the entire end-user request." class="w-full my-4" >}}

Percentiles are often used in *service level objectives* (SLOs) and *service level agreements*
(SLAs) as ways of defining the expected performance and availability of a service [^27].
For example, an SLO may set a target for a service to have a median response time of less than
200 ms and a 99th percentile under 1 s, and a target that at least 99.9% of valid requests
result in non-error responses. An SLA is a contract that specifies what happens if the SLO is not
met (for example, customers may be entitled to a refund). That is the basic idea, at least; in
practice, defining good availability metrics for SLOs and SLAs is not straightforward [^28] [^29].

--------

> [!TIP] COMPUTING PERCENTILES

If you want to add response time percentiles to the monitoring dashboards for your services, you
need to efficiently calculate them on an ongoing basis. For example, you may want to keep a rolling
window of response times of requests in the last 10 minutes. Every minute, you calculate the median
and various percentiles over the values in that window and plot those metrics on a graph.

The simplest implementation is to keep a list of response times for all requests within the time
window and to sort that list every minute. If that is too inefficient for you, there are algorithms
that can calculate a good approximation of percentiles at minimal CPU and memory cost.
Open source percentile estimation libraries include HdrHistogram,
t-digest [^30] [^31],
OpenHistogram [^32], and DDSketch [^33].

Beware that averaging percentiles, e.g., to reduce the time resolution or to combine data from
several machines, is mathematically meaningless—the right way of aggregating response time data
is to add the histograms [^34].

--------


## Reliability and Fault Tolerance

Everybody has an intuitive idea of what it means for something to be reliable or unreliable. For
software, typical expectations include:

* The application performs the function that the user expected.
* It can tolerate the user making mistakes or using the software in unexpected ways.
* Its performance is good enough for the required use case, under the expected load and data volume.
* The system prevents any unauthorized access and abuse.

If all those things together mean “working correctly,” then we can understand *reliability* as
meaning, roughly, “continuing to work correctly, even when things go wrong.” To be more precise
about things going wrong, we will distinguish between *faults* and *failures* [^35] [^36] [^37]:

Fault
: A fault is when a particular *part* of a system stops working correctly: for example, if a
 single hard drive malfunctions, or a single machine crashes, or an external service (that the
 system depends on) has an outage.

Failure
: A failure is when the system *as a whole* stops providing the required service to the user; in
 other words, when it does not meet the service level objective (SLO).

The distinction between fault and failure can be confusing because they are the same thing, just at
different levels. For example, if a hard drive stops working, we say that the hard drive has failed:
if the system consists only of that one hard drive, it has stopped providing the required service.
However, if the system you’re talking about contains many hard drives, then the failure of a single
hard drive is only a fault from the point of view of the bigger system, and the bigger system might
be able to tolerate that fault by having a copy of the data on another hard drive.

### Fault Tolerance

We call a system *fault-tolerant* if it continues providing the required service to the user in
spite of certain faults occurring. If a system cannot tolerate a certain part becoming faulty, we
call that part a *single point of failure* (SPOF), because a fault in that part escalates to cause
the failure of the whole system.

For example, in the social network case study, a fault that might happen is that during the fan-out
process, a machine involved in updating the materialized timelines crashes or become unavailable.
To make this process fault-tolerant, we would need to ensure that another machine can take over this
task without missing any posts that should have been delivered, and without duplicating any posts.
(This idea is known as *exactly-once semantics*, and we will examine it in detail in [Link to Come].)

Fault tolerance is always limited to a certain number of certain types of faults. For example, a
system might be able to tolerate a maximum of two hard drives failing at the same time, or a maximum
of one out of three nodes crashing. It would not make sense to tolerate any number of faults: if all
nodes crash, there is nothing that can be done. If the entire planet Earth (and all servers on it)
were swallowed by a black hole, tolerance of that fault would require web hosting in space—good luck
getting that budget item approved.

Counter-intuitively, in such fault-tolerant systems, it can make sense to *increase* the rate of
faults by triggering them deliberately—for example, by randomly killing individual processes
without warning. This is called *fault injection*. Many critical bugs are actually due to poor error
handling [^38]; by deliberately inducing faults, you ensure
that the fault-tolerance machinery is continually exercised and tested, which can increase your
confidence that faults will be handled correctly when they occur naturally. *Chaos engineering* is
a discipline that aims to improve confidence in fault-tolerance mechanisms through experiments such
as deliberately injecting faults [^39].

Although we generally prefer tolerating faults over preventing faults, there are cases where
prevention is better than cure (e.g., because no cure exists). This is the case with security
matters, for example: if an attacker has compromised a system and gained access to sensitive data,
that event cannot be undone. However, this book mostly deals with the kinds of faults that can be
cured, as described in the following sections.

### Hardware and Software Faults

When we think of causes of system failure, hardware faults quickly come to mind:

* Approximately 2–5% of magnetic hard drives fail per year [^40] [^41]; in a storage cluster with 10,000 disks, we should therefore expect on average one disk failure per day.
 Recent data suggests that disks are getting more reliable, but failure rates remain significant [^42].
* Approximately 0.5–1% of solid state drives (SSDs) fail per year [^43]. Small numbers of bit errors are corrected automatically [^44], but uncorrectable errors occur approximately once per year per drive, even in drives that are
 fairly new (i.e., that have experienced little wear); this error rate is higher than that of
 magnetic hard drives [^45], [^46].
* Other hardware components such as power supplies, RAID controllers, and memory modules also fail, although less frequently than hard drives [^47] [^48].
* Approximately one in 1,000 machines has a CPU core that occasionally computes the wrong result,
 likely due to manufacturing defects [^49] [^50] [^51]. In some cases, an erroneous computation leads to a crash, but in other cases it leads to a program simply returning the wrong result.
* Data in RAM can also be corrupted, either due to random events such as cosmic rays, or due to
 permanent physical defects. Even when memory with error-correcting codes (ECC) is used, more than
 1% of machines encounter an uncorrectable error in a given year, which typically leads to a crash
 of the machine and the affected memory module needing to be replaced [^52].
 Moreover, certain pathological memory access patterns can flip bits with high probability [^53].
* An entire datacenter might become unavailable (for example, due to power outage or network
 misconfiguration) or even be permanently destroyed (for example by fire, flood, or earthquake [^54]).
 A solar storm, which induces large electrical currents in long-distance wires when the sun ejects
 a large mass of charged particles, could damage power grids and undersea network cables [^55].
 Although such large-scale failures are rare, their impact can be catastrophic if a service cannot tolerate the loss of a datacenter [^56].

These events are rare enough that you often don’t need to worry about them when working on a small
system, as long as you can easily replace hardware that becomes faulty. However, in a large-scale
system, hardware faults happen often enough that they become part of the normal system operation.

#### Tolerating hardware faults through redundancy

Our first response to unreliable hardware is usually to add redundancy to the individual hardware
components in order to reduce the failure rate of the system. Disks may be set up in a RAID
configuration (spreading data across multiple disks in the same machine so that a failed disk does
not cause data loss), servers may have dual power supplies and hot-swappable CPUs, and datacenters
may have batteries and diesel generators for backup power. Such redundancy can often keep a machine
running uninterrupted for years.

Redundancy is most effective when component faults are independent, that is, the occurrence of one
fault does not change how likely it is that another fault will occur. However, experience has shown
that there are often significant correlations between component failures [^41] [^57] [^58];
unavailability of an entire server rack or an entire datacenter still happens more often than we
would like.

Hardware redundancy increases the uptime of a single machine; however, as discussed in
[“Distributed versus Single-Node Systems”](/en/ch1#sec_introduction_distributed), there are advantages to using a distributed system, such as being
able to tolerate a complete outage of one datacenter.
For this reason, cloud systems tend to focus less on the reliability of individual machines, and
instead aim to make services highly available by tolerating faulty nodes at the software level.
Cloud providers use *availability zones* to identify which resources are physically co-located;
resources in the same place are more likely to fail at the same time than geographically separated
resources.

The fault-tolerance techniques we discuss in this book are designed to tolerate the loss of entire
machines, racks, or availability zones. They generally work by allowing a machine in one datacenter
to take over when a machine in another datacenter fails or becomes unreachable. We will discuss such
techniques for fault tolerance in [Chapter 6](/en/ch6#ch_replication), [Chapter 10](/en/ch10#ch_consistency), and at various other
points in this book.

Systems that can tolerate the loss of entire machines also have operational advantages: a
single-server system requires planned downtime if you need to reboot the machine (to apply operating
system security patches, for example), whereas a multi-node fault-tolerant system can be patched by
restarting one node at a time, without affecting the service for users. This is called a *rolling
upgrade*, and we will discuss it further in [Chapter 5](/en/ch5#ch_encoding).

#### Software faults

Although hardware failures can be weakly correlated, they are still mostly independent: for
example, if one disk fails, it’s likely that other disks in the same machine will be fine for
another while. On the other hand, software faults are often very highly correlated, because it is
common for many nodes to run the same software and thus have the same bugs [^59] [^60].
Such faults are harder to anticipate, and they tend to cause many more system failures than
uncorrelated hardware faults [^47]. For example:

* A software bug that causes every node to fail at the same time in particular circumstances. For
 example, on June 30, 2012, a leap second caused many Java applications to hang simultaneously due
 to a bug in the Linux kernel, bringing down many Internet services [^61].
 Due to a firmware bug, all SSDs of certain models suddenly fail after precisely 32,768 hours of
 operation (less than 4 years), rendering the data on them unrecoverable [^62].
* A runaway process that uses up some shared, limited resource, such as CPU time, memory, disk
 space, network bandwidth, or threads [^63]. For example, a process that consumes too much memory while processing a large request may be
 killed by the operating system. A bug in a client library could cause a much higher request volume than anticipated [^64].
* A service that the system depends on slows down, becomes unresponsive, or starts returning corrupted responses.
* An interaction between different systems results in emergent behavior that does not occur when each system was tested in isolation [^65].
* Cascading failures, where a problem in one component causes another component to become overloaded
 and slow down, which in turn brings down another component [^66] [^67].

The bugs that cause these kinds of software faults often lie dormant for a long time until they are
triggered by an unusual set of circumstances. In those circumstances, it is revealed that the
software is making some kind of assumption about its environment—and while that assumption is
usually true, it eventually stops being true for some reason [^68] [^69].

There is no quick solution to the problem of systematic faults in software. Lots of small things can
help: carefully thinking about assumptions and interactions in the system; thorough testing; process
isolation; allowing processes to crash and restart; avoiding feedback loops such as retry storms
(see [“When an overloaded system won’t recover”](/en/ch2#sidebar_metastable)); measuring, monitoring, and analyzing system behavior in production.

### Humans and Reliability

Humans design and build software systems, and the operators who keep the systems running are also
human. Unlike machines, humans don’t just follow rules; their strength is being creative and
adaptive in getting their job done. However, this characteristic also leads to unpredictability, and
sometimes mistakes that can lead to failures, despite best intentions. For example, one study of
large internet services found that configuration changes by operators were the leading cause of
outages, whereas hardware faults (servers or network) played a role in only 10–25% of outages [^70].

It is tempting to label such problems as “human error” and to wish that they could be solved by
better controlling human behavior through tighter procedures and compliance with rules. However,
blaming people for mistakes is counterproductive. What we call “human error” is not really the cause
of an incident, but rather a symptom of a problem with the sociotechnical system in which people are
trying their best to do their jobs [^71].
Often complex systems have emergent behavior, in which unexpected interactions between components
may also lead to failures [^72].

Various technical measures can help minimize the impact of human mistakes, including thorough
testing (both hand-written tests and *property testing* on lots of random inputs) [^38], rollback mechanisms for quickly
reverting configuration changes, gradual roll-outs of new code, detailed and clear monitoring,
observability tools for diagnosing production issues (see [“Problems with Distributed Systems”](/en/ch1#sec_introduction_dist_sys_problems)),
and well-designed interfaces that encourage “the right thing” and discourage “the wrong thing”.

However, these things require an investment of time and money, and in the pragmatic reality of
everyday business, organizations often prioritize revenue-generating activities over measures that
increase their resilience against mistakes. If there is a choice between more features and more
testing, many organizations understandably choose features. Given this choice, when a preventable
mistake inevitably occurs, it does not make sense to blame the person who made the mistake—the
problem is the organization’s priorities.

Increasingly, organizations are adopting a culture of *blameless postmortems*: after an incident,
the people involved are encouraged to share full details about what happened, without fear of
punishment, since this allows others in the organization to learn how to prevent similar problems in the future [^73].
This process may uncover a need to change business priorities, a need to invest in areas that have
been neglected, a need to change the incentives for the people involved, or some other systemic
issue that needs to be brought to the management’s attention.

As a general principle, when investigating an incident, you should be suspicious of simplistic
answers. “Bob should have been more careful when deploying that change” is not productive, but
neither is “We must rewrite the backend in Haskell.” Instead, management should take the opportunity
to learn the details of how the sociotechnical system works from the point of view of the people who
work with it every day, and take steps to improve it based on this feedback [^71].

--------

> [!TIP] HOW IMPORTANT IS RELIABILITY?

Reliability is not just for nuclear power stations and air traffic control—more mundane applications
are also expected to work reliably. Bugs in business applications cause lost productivity (and legal
risks if figures are reported incorrectly), and outages of e-commerce sites can have huge costs in
terms of lost revenue and damage to reputation.

In many applications, a temporary outage of a few minutes or even a few hours is tolerable [^74],
but permanent data loss or corruption would be catastrophic. Consider a parent who stores all their
pictures and videos of their children in your photo application [^75]. How would they
feel if that database was suddenly corrupted? Would they know how to restore it from a backup?

As another example of how unreliable software can harm people, consider the Post Office Horizon
scandal. Between 1999 and 2019, hundreds of people managing Post Office branches in Britain were
convicted of theft or fraud because the accounting software showed a shortfall in their accounts.
Eventually it became clear that many of these shortfalls were due to bugs in the software, and many
convictions have since been overturned [^76].
What led to this, probably the largest miscarriage of justice in British history, is the fact that
English law assumes that computers operate correctly (and hence, evidence produced by computers is
reliable) unless there is evidence to the contrary [^77].
Software engineers may laugh at the idea that software could ever be bug-free, but this is little
solace to the people who were wrongfully imprisoned, declared bankrupt, or even committed suicide as
a result of a wrongful conviction due to an unreliable computer system.

There are situations in which we may choose to sacrifice reliability in order to reduce development
cost (e.g., when developing a prototype product for an unproven market)—but we should be very
conscious of when we are cutting corners and keep in mind the potential consequences.

--------

## Scalability

Even if a system is working reliably today, that doesn’t mean it will necessarily work reliably in
the future. One common reason for degradation is increased load: perhaps the system has grown from
10,000 concurrent users to 100,000 concurrent users, or from 1 million to 10 million. Perhaps it is
processing much larger volumes of data than it did before.

*Scalability* is the term we use to describe a system’s ability to cope with increased load.
Sometimes, when discussing scalability, people make comments along the lines of, “You’re not Google
or Amazon. Stop worrying about scale and just use a relational database.” Whether this maxim applies
to you depends on the type of application you are building.

If you are building a new product that currently only has a small number of users, perhaps at a
startup, the overriding engineering goal is usually to keep the system as simple and flexible as
possible, so that you can easily modify and adapt the features of your product as you learn more
about customers’ needs [^78].
In such an environment, it is counterproductive to worry about hypothetical scale that might be
needed in the future: in the best case, investments in scalability are wasted effort and premature
optimization; in the worst case, they lock you into an inflexible design and make it harder to
evolve your application.

The reason is that scalability is not a one-dimensional label: it is meaningless to say “X is
scalable” or “Y doesn’t scale.” Rather, discussing scalability means considering questions like:

* “If the system grows in a particular way, what are our options for coping with the growth?”
* “How can we add computing resources to handle the additional load?”
* “Based on current growth projections, when will we hit the limits of our current architecture?”

If you succeed in making your application popular, and therefore handling a growing amount of load,
you will learn where your performance bottlenecks lie, and therefore you will know along which
dimensions you need to scale. At that point it’s time to start worrying about techniques for
scalability.

### Describing Load

First, we need to succinctly describe the current load on the system; only then can we discuss
growth questions (what happens if our load doubles?). Often this will be a measure of throughput:
for example, the number of requests per second to a service, how many gigabytes of new data arrive
per day, or the number of shopping cart checkouts per hour. Sometimes you care about the peak of
some variable quantity, such as the number of simultaneously online users in
[“Case Study: Social Network Home Timelines”](/en/ch2#sec_introduction_twitter).

Often there are other statistical characteristics of the load that also affect the access patterns
and hence the scalability requirements. For example, you may need to know the ratio of reads to
writes in a database, the hit rate on a cache, or the number of data items per user (for example,
the number of followers in the social network case study). Perhaps the average case is what matters
for you, or perhaps your bottleneck is dominated by a small number of extreme cases. It all depends
on the details of your particular application.

Once you have described the load on your system, you can investigate what happens when the load
increases. You can look at it in two ways:

* When you increase the load in a certain way and keep the system resources (CPUs, memory, network
 bandwidth, etc.) unchanged, how is the performance of your system affected?
* When you increase the load in a certain way, how much do you need to increase the resources if you
 want to keep performance unchanged?

Usually our goal is to keep the performance of the system within the requirements of the SLA
(see [“Use of Response Time Metrics”](/en/ch2#sec_introduction_slo_sla)) while also minimizing the cost of running the system. The greater
the required computing resources, the higher the cost. It might be that some types of hardware are
more cost-effective than others, and these factors may change over time as new types of hardware
become available.

If you can double the resources in order to handle twice the load, while keeping performance the
same, we say that you have *linear scalability*, and this is considered a good thing. Occasionally
it is possible to handle twice the load with less than double the resources, due to economies of
scale or a better distribution of peak load
[^79] [^80].
Much more likely is that the cost grows faster than linearly, and there may be many reasons for the
inefficiency. For example, if you have a lot of data, then processing a single write request may
involve more work than if you have a small amount of data, even if the size of the request is the
same.

### Shared-Memory, Shared-Disk, and Shared-Nothing Architecture

The simplest way of increasing the hardware resources of a service is to move it to a more powerful
machine. Individual CPU cores are no longer getting significantly faster, but you can buy a machine
(or rent a cloud instance) with more CPU cores, more RAM, and more disk space. This approach is
called *vertical scaling* or *scaling up*.

You can get parallelism on a single machine by using multiple processes or threads. All the threads
belonging to the same process can access the same RAM, and hence this approach is also called a
*shared-memory architecture*. The problem with a shared-memory approach is that the cost grows
faster than linearly: a high-end machine with twice the hardware resources typically costs
significantly more than twice as much. And due to bottlenecks, a machine twice the size can often
handle less than twice the load.

Another approach is the *shared-disk architecture*, which uses several machines with independent
CPUs and RAM, but which stores data on an array of disks that is shared between the machines, which
are connected via a fast network: *Network-Attached Storage* (NAS) or *Storage Area Network* (SAN).
This architecture has traditionally been used for on-premises data warehousing workloads, but
contention and the overhead of locking limit the scalability of the shared-disk approach [^81].

By contrast, the *shared-nothing architecture* [^82]
(also called *horizontal scaling* or *scaling out*) has gained a lot of popularity. In this
approach, we use a distributed system with multiple nodes, each of which has its own CPUs, RAM, and
disks. Any coordination between nodes is done at the software level, via a conventional network.

The advantages of shared-nothing are that it has the potential to scale linearly, it can use
whatever hardware offers the best price/performance ratio (especially in the cloud), it can more
easily adjust its hardware resources as load increases or decreases, and it can achieve greater
fault tolerance by distributing the system across multiple data centers and regions. The downsides
are that it requires explicit sharding (see [Chapter 7](/en/ch7#ch_sharding)), and it incurs all the complexity of
distributed systems ([Chapter 9](/en/ch9#ch_distributed)).

Some cloud-native database systems use separate services for storage and transaction execution (see
[“Separation of storage and compute”](/en/ch1#sec_introduction_storage_compute)), with multiple compute nodes sharing access to the same
storage service. This model has some similarity to a shared-disk architecture, but it avoids the
scalability problems of older systems: instead of providing a filesystem (NAS) or block device (SAN)
abstraction, the storage service offers a specialized API that is designed for the specific needs of
the database [^83].

### Principles for Scalability

The architecture of systems that operate at large scale is usually highly specific to the
application—there is no such thing as a generic, one-size-fits-all scalable architecture
(informally known as *magic scaling sauce*). For example, a system that is designed to handle
100,000 requests per second, each 1 kB in size, looks very different from a system that is
designed for 3 requests per minute, each 2 GB in size—even though the two systems have the same
data throughput (100 MB/sec).

Moreover, an architecture that is appropriate for one level of load is unlikely to cope with 10
times that load. If you are working on a fast-growing service, it is therefore likely that you will
need to rethink your architecture on every order of magnitude load increase. As the needs of the
application are likely to evolve, it is usually not worth planning future scaling needs more than
one order of magnitude in advance.

A good general principle for scalability is to break a system down into smaller components that can
operate largely independently from each other. This is the underlying principle behind microservices
(see [“Microservices and Serverless”](/en/ch1#sec_introduction_microservices)), sharding ([Chapter 7](/en/ch7#ch_sharding)), stream processing
([Link to Come]), and shared-nothing architectures. However, the challenge is in knowing where to
draw the line between things that should be together, and things that should be apart. Design
guidelines for microservices can be found in other books [^84],
and we discuss sharding of shared-nothing systems in [Chapter 7](/en/ch7#ch_sharding).

Another good principle is not to make things more complicated than necessary. If a single-machine
database will do the job, it’s probably preferable to a complicated distributed setup. Auto-scaling
systems (which automatically add or remove resources in response to demand) are cool, but if your
load is fairly predictable, a manually scaled system may have fewer operational surprises (see
[“Operations: Automatic or Manual Rebalancing”](/en/ch7#sec_sharding_operations)). A system with five services is simpler than one with fifty. Good
architectures usually involve a pragmatic mixture of approaches.

## Maintainability

Software does not wear out or suffer material fatigue, so it does not break in the same ways as
mechanical objects do. But the requirements for an application frequently change, the environment
that the software runs in changes (such as its dependencies and the underlying platform), and it has
bugs that need fixing.

It is widely recognized that the majority of the cost of software is not in its initial development,
but in its ongoing maintenance—fixing bugs, keeping its systems operational, investigating failures,
adapting it to new platforms, modifying it for new use cases, repaying technical debt, and adding
new features [^85] [^86].

However, maintenance is also difficult. If a system has been successfully running for a long time,
it may well use outdated technologies that not many engineers understand today (such as mainframes
and COBOL code); institutional knowledge of how and why a system was designed in a certain way may
have been lost as people have left the organization; it might be necessary to fix other people’s
mistakes. Moreover, the computer system is often intertwined with the human organization that it
supports, which means that maintenance of such *legacy* systems is as much a people problem as a
technical one [^87].

Every system we create today will one day become a legacy system if it is valuable enough to survive
for a long time. In order to minimize the pain for future generations who need to maintain our
software, we should design it with maintenance concerns in mind. Although we cannot always predict
which decisions might create maintenance headaches in the future, in this book we will pay attention
to several principles that are widely applicable:

Operability
: Make it easy for the organization to keep the system running smoothly.

Simplicity
: Make it easy for new engineers to understand the system, by implementing it using well-understood,
 consistent patterns and structures, and avoiding unnecessary complexity.

Evolvability
: Make it easy for engineers to make changes to the system in the future, adapting it and extending
 it for unanticipated use cases as requirements change.


### Operability: Making Life Easy for Operations

We previously discussed the role of operations in [“Operations in the Cloud Era”](/en/ch1#sec_introduction_operations), and we saw that
human processes are at least as important for reliable operations as software tools. In fact, it has
been suggested that “good operations can often work around the limitations of bad (or incomplete)
software, but good software cannot run reliably with bad operations” [^60].

In large-scale systems consisting of many thousands of machines, manual maintenance would be
unreasonably expensive, and automation is essential. However, automation can be a two-edged sword:
there will always be edge cases (such as rare failure scenarios) that require manual intervention
from the operations team. Since the cases that cannot be handled automatically are the most complex
issues, greater automation requires a *more* skilled operations team that can resolve those issues [^88].

Moreover, if an automated system goes wrong, it is often harder to troubleshoot than a system that
relies on an operator to perform some actions manually. For that reason, it is not the case that
more automation is always better for operability. However, some amount of automation is important,
and the sweet spot will depend on the specifics of your particular application and organization.

Good operability means making routine tasks easy, allowing the operations team to focus their efforts
on high-value activities. Data systems can do various things to make routine tasks easy, including [^89]:

* Allowing monitoring tools to check the system’s key metrics, and supporting observability tools
 (see [“Problems with Distributed Systems”](/en/ch1#sec_introduction_dist_sys_problems)) to give insights into the system’s runtime behavior.
 A variety of commercial and open source tools can help here
 [^90].
* Avoiding dependency on individual machines (allowing machines to be taken down for maintenance
 while the system as a whole continues running uninterrupted)
* Providing good documentation and an easy-to-understand operational model (“If I do X, Y will happen”)
* Providing good default behavior, but also giving administrators the freedom to override defaults when needed
* Self-healing where appropriate, but also giving administrators manual control over the system state when needed
* Exhibiting predictable behavior, minimizing surprises

### Simplicity: Managing Complexity

Small software projects can have delightfully simple and expressive code, but as projects get
larger, they often become very complex and difficult to understand. This complexity slows down
everyone who needs to work on the system, further increasing the cost of maintenance. A software
project mired in complexity is sometimes described as a *big ball of mud* [^91].

When complexity makes maintenance hard, budgets and schedules are often overrun. In complex
software, there is also a greater risk of introducing bugs when making a change: when the system is
harder for developers to understand and reason about, hidden assumptions, unintended consequences,
and unexpected interactions are more easily overlooked [^69].
Conversely, reducing complexity greatly improves the maintainability of software, and thus
simplicity should be a key goal for the systems we build.

Simple systems are easier to understand, and therefore we should try to solve a given problem in the
simplest way possible. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. Whether something is simple or
not is often a subjective matter of taste, as there is no objective standard of simplicity [^92].
For example, one system may hide a complex implementation behind a simple interface, whereas another
may have a simple implementation that exposes more internal detail to its users—which one is simpler?

One attempt at reasoning about complexity has been to break it down into two categories, *essential* and *accidental* complexity [^93].
The idea is that essential complexity is inherent in the problem domain of the application, while
accidental complexity arises only because of limitations of our tooling. Unfortunately, this
distinction is also flawed, because boundaries between the essential and the accidental shift as our tooling evolves [^94].

One of the best tools we have for managing complexity is *abstraction*. A good abstraction can hide
a great deal of implementation detail behind a clean, simple-to-understand façade. A good
abstraction can also be used for a wide range of different applications. Not only is this reuse more
efficient than reimplementing a similar thing multiple times, but it also leads to higher-quality
software, as quality improvements in the abstracted component benefit all applications that use it.

For example, high-level programming languages are abstractions that hide machine code, CPU registers,
and syscalls. SQL is an abstraction that hides complex on-disk and in-memory data structures,
concurrent requests from other clients, and inconsistencies after crashes. Of course, when
programming in a high-level language, we are still using machine code; we are just not using it
*directly*, because the programming language abstraction saves us from having to think about it.

Abstractions for application code, which aim to reduce its complexity,
can be created using methodologies such as *design patterns* [^95] and *domain-driven design* (DDD) [^96].
This book is not about such application-specific abstractions, but rather about general-purpose
abstractions on top of which you can build your applications, such as database transactions,
indexes, and event logs. If you want to use techniques such as DDD, you can implement them on top of
the foundations described in this book.

### Evolvability: Making Change Easy

It’s extremely unlikely that your system’s requirements will remain unchanged forever. They are much more
likely to be in constant flux: you learn new facts, previously unanticipated use cases emerge,
business priorities change, users request new features, new platforms replace old platforms, legal
or regulatory requirements change, growth of the system forces architectural changes, etc.

In terms of organizational processes, *Agile* working patterns provide a framework for adapting to
change. The Agile community has also developed technical tools and processes that are helpful when
developing software in a frequently changing environment, such as test-driven development (TDD) and
refactoring. In this book, we search for ways of increasing agility at the level of a system
consisting of several different applications or services with different characteristics.

The ease with which you can modify a data system, and adapt it to changing requirements, is closely
linked to its simplicity and its abstractions: loosely-coupled, simple systems are usually easier to
modify than tightly-coupled, complex ones. Since this is such an important idea, we will use a
different word to refer to agility on a data system level: *evolvability* [^97].

One major factor that makes change difficult in large systems is when some action is irreversible,
and therefore that action needs to be taken very carefully [^98].
For example, say you are migrating from one database to another: if you cannot switch back to the
old system in case of problems with the new one, the stakes are much higher than if you can easily go
back. Minimizing irreversibility improves flexibility.


## Summary

In this chapter we examined several examples of nonfunctional requirements: performance,
reliability, scalability, and maintainability. Through these topics we have also encountered
principles and terminology that we will need throughout the rest of the book. We started with a case
study of how one might implement home timelines in a social network, which illustrated some of the
challenges that arise at scale.

We discussed how to measure performance (e.g., using response time percentiles), the load on a
system (e.g., using throughput metrics), and how they are used in SLAs. Scalability is a closely
related concept: that is, ensuring performance stays the same when the load grows. We saw some
general principles for scalability, such as breaking a task down into smaller parts that can operate
independently, and we will dive into deep technical detail on scalability techniques in the
following chapters.

To achieve reliability, you can use fault tolerance techniques, which allow a system to continue
providing its service even if some component (e.g., a disk, a machine, or another service) is
faulty. We saw examples of hardware faults that can occur, and distinguished them from software
faults, which can be harder to deal with because they are often strongly correlated. Another aspect
of achieving reliability is to build resilience against humans making mistakes, and we saw blameless
postmortems as a technique for learning from incidents.

Finally, we examined several facets of maintainability, including supporting the work of operations
teams, managing complexity, and making it easy to evolve an application’s functionality over time.
There are no easy answers on how to achieve these things, but one thing that can help is to build
applications using well-understood building blocks that provide useful abstractions. The rest of
this book will cover a selection of building blocks that have proved to be valuable in practice.

### References

[^1]: Mike Cvet. [How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Fan-In at Twitter](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgCjwyXvwc). At *QCon San Francisco*, December 2016. 
[^2]: Raffi Krikorian. [Timelines at Scale](https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Twitter-Timeline-Scalability/). At *QCon San Francisco*, November 2012. Archived at [perma.cc/V9G5-KLYK](https://perma.cc/V9G5-KLYK) 
[^3]: Twitter. [Twitter’s Recommendation Algorithm](https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/open-source/2023/twitter-recommendation-algorithm). *blog.twitter.com*, March 2023. Archived at [perma.cc/L5GT-229T](https://perma.cc/L5GT-229T) 
[^4]: Raffi Krikorian. [New Tweets per second record, and how!](https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/a/2013/new-tweets-per-second-record-and-how) *blog.twitter.com*, August 2013. Archived at [perma.cc/6JZN-XJYN](https://perma.cc/6JZN-XJYN) 
[^5]: Jaz Volpert. [When Imperfect Systems are Good, Actually: Bluesky’s Lossy Timelines](https://jazco.dev/2025/02/19/imperfection/). *jazco.dev*, February 2025. Archived at [perma.cc/2PVE-L2MX](https://perma.cc/2PVE-L2MX) 
[^6]: Samuel Axon. [3% of Twitter’s Servers Dedicated to Justin Bieber](https://mashable.com/archive/justin-bieber-twitter). *mashable.com*, September 2010. Archived at [perma.cc/F35N-CGVX](https://perma.cc/F35N-CGVX) 
[^7]: Nathan Bronson, Abutalib Aghayev, Aleksey Charapko, and Timothy Zhu. [Metastable Failures in Distributed Systems](https://sigops.org/s/conferences/hotos/2021/papers/hotos21-s11-bronson.pdf). At *Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems* (HotOS), May 2021. [doi:10.1145/3458336.3465286](https://doi.org/10.1145/3458336.3465286) 
[^8]: Marc Brooker. [Metastability and Distributed Systems](https://brooker.co.za/blog/2021/05/24/metastable.html). *brooker.co.za*, May 2021. Archived at [perma.cc/7FGJ-7XRK](https://perma.cc/7FGJ-7XRK) 
[^9]: Marc Brooker. [Exponential Backoff And Jitter](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/exponential-backoff-and-jitter/). *aws.amazon.com*, March 2015. Archived at [perma.cc/R6MS-AZKH](https://perma.cc/R6MS-AZKH) 
[^10]: Marc Brooker. [What is Backoff For?](https://brooker.co.za/blog/2022/08/11/backoff.html) *brooker.co.za*, August 2022. Archived at [perma.cc/PW9N-55Q5](https://perma.cc/PW9N-55Q5) 
[^11]: Michael T. Nygard. [*Release It!*](https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/release-it-2nd/9781680504552/), 2nd Edition. Pragmatic Bookshelf, January 2018. ISBN: 9781680502398 
[^12]: Frank Chen. [Slowing Down to Speed Up – Circuit Breakers for Slack’s CI/CD](https://slack.engineering/circuit-breakers/). *slack.engineering*, August 2022. Archived at [perma.cc/5FGS-ZPH3](https://perma.cc/5FGS-ZPH3) 
[^13]: Marc Brooker. [Fixing retries with token buckets and circuit breakers](https://brooker.co.za/blog/2022/02/28/retries.html). *brooker.co.za*, February 2022. Archived at [perma.cc/MD6N-GW26](https://perma.cc/MD6N-GW26) 
[^14]: David Yanacek. [Using load shedding to avoid overload](https://aws.amazon.com/builders-library/using-load-shedding-to-avoid-overload/). Amazon Builders’ Library, *aws.amazon.com*. Archived at [perma.cc/9SAW-68MP](https://perma.cc/9SAW-68MP) 
[^15]: Matthew Sackman. [Pushing Back](https://wellquite.org/posts/lshift/pushing_back/). *wellquite.org*, May 2016. Archived at [perma.cc/3KCZ-RUFY](https://perma.cc/3KCZ-RUFY) 
[^16]: Dmitry Kopytkov and Patrick Lee. [Meet Bandaid, the Dropbox service proxy](https://dropbox.tech/infrastructure/meet-bandaid-the-dropbox-service-proxy). *dropbox.tech*, March 2018. Archived at [perma.cc/KUU6-YG4S](https://perma.cc/KUU6-YG4S) 
[^17]: Haryadi S. Gunawi, Riza O. Suminto, Russell Sears, Casey Golliher, Swaminathan Sundararaman, Xing Lin, Tim Emami, Weiguang Sheng, Nematollah Bidokhti, Caitie McCaffrey, Gary Grider, Parks M. Fields, Kevin Harms, Robert B. Ross, Andree Jacobson, Robert Ricci, Kirk Webb, Peter Alvaro, H. Birali Runesha, Mingzhe Hao, and Huaicheng Li. [Fail-Slow at Scale: Evidence of Hardware Performance Faults in Large Production Systems](https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/fast18/fast18-gunawi.pdf). At *16th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies*, February 2018. 
[^18]: Marc Brooker. [Is the Mean Really Useless?](https://brooker.co.za/blog/2017/12/28/mean.html) *brooker.co.za*, December 2017. Archived at [perma.cc/U5AE-CVEM](https://perma.cc/U5AE-CVEM) 
[^19]: Giuseppe DeCandia, Deniz Hastorun, Madan Jampani, Gunavardhan Kakulapati, Avinash Lakshman, Alex Pilchin, Swaminathan Sivasubramanian, Peter Vosshall, and Werner Vogels. [Dynamo: Amazon’s Highly Available Key-Value Store](https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/files/amazon-dynamo-sosp2007.pdf). At *21st ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles* (SOSP), October 2007. [doi:10.1145/1294261.1294281](https://doi.org/10.1145/1294261.1294281) 
[^20]: Kathryn Whitenton. [The Need for Speed, 23 Years Later](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-need-for-speed/). *nngroup.com*, May 2020. Archived at [perma.cc/C4ER-LZYA](https://perma.cc/C4ER-LZYA) 
[^21]: Greg Linden. [Marissa Mayer at Web 2.0](https://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/11/marissa-mayer-at-web-20.html). *glinden.blogspot.com*, November 2005. Archived at [perma.cc/V7EA-3VXB](https://perma.cc/V7EA-3VXB) 
[^22]: Jake Brutlag. [Speed Matters for Google Web Search](https://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/google_delayexp.pdf). *services.google.com*, June 2009. Archived at [perma.cc/BK7R-X7M2](https://perma.cc/BK7R-X7M2) 
[^23]: Eric Schurman and Jake Brutlag. [Performance Related Changes and their User Impact](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQSE51-gr2s). Talk at *Velocity 2009*. 
[^24]: Akamai Technologies, Inc. [The State of Online Retail Performance](https://web.archive.org/web/20210729180749/https%3A//www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/report/akamai-state-of-online-retail-performance-spring-2017.pdf). *akamai.com*, April 2017. Archived at [perma.cc/UEK2-HYCS](https://perma.cc/UEK2-HYCS) 
[^25]: Xiao Bai, Ioannis Arapakis, B. Barla Cambazoglu, and Ana Freire. [Understanding and Leveraging the Impact of Response Latency on User Behaviour in Web Search](https://iarapakis.github.io/papers/TOIS17.pdf). *ACM Transactions on Information Systems*, volume 36, issue 2, article 21, April 2018. [doi:10.1145/3106372](https://doi.org/10.1145/3106372) 
[^26]: Jeffrey Dean and Luiz André Barroso. [The Tail at Scale](https://cacm.acm.org/research/the-tail-at-scale/). *Communications of the ACM*, volume 56, issue 2, pages 74–80, February 2013. [doi:10.1145/2408776.2408794](https://doi.org/10.1145/2408776.2408794) 
[^27]: Alex Hidalgo. [*Implementing Service Level Objectives: A Practical Guide to SLIs, SLOs, and Error Budgets*](https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/implementing-service-level/9781492076803/). O’Reilly Media, September 2020. ISBN: 1492076813 
[^28]: Jeffrey C. Mogul and John Wilkes. [Nines are Not Enough: Meaningful Metrics for Clouds](https://research.google/pubs/pub48033/). At *17th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems* (HotOS), May 2019. [doi:10.1145/3317550.3321432](https://doi.org/10.1145/3317550.3321432) 
[^29]: Tamás Hauer, Philipp Hoffmann, John Lunney, Dan Ardelean, and Amer Diwan. [Meaningful Availability](https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi20/presentation/hauer). At *17th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation* (NSDI), February 2020. 
[^30]: Ted Dunning. [The t-digest: Efficient estimates of distributions](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665963820300403). *Software Impacts*, volume 7, article 100049, February 2021. [doi:10.1016/j.simpa.2020.100049](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpa.2020.100049) 
[^31]: David Kohn. [How percentile approximation works (and why it’s more useful than averages)](https://www.timescale.com/blog/how-percentile-approximation-works-and-why-its-more-useful-than-averages/). *timescale.com*, September 2021. Archived at [perma.cc/3PDP-NR8B](https://perma.cc/3PDP-NR8B) 
[^32]: Heinrich Hartmann and Theo Schlossnagle. [Circllhist — A Log-Linear Histogram Data Structure for IT Infrastructure Monitoring](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.06561.pdf). *arxiv.org*, January 2020. 
[^33]: Charles Masson, Jee E. Rim, and Homin K. Lee. [DDSketch: A Fast and Fully-Mergeable Quantile Sketch with Relative-Error Guarantees](https://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol12/p2195-masson.pdf). *Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment*, volume 12, issue 12, pages 2195–2205, August 2019. [doi:10.14778/3352063.3352135](https://doi.org/10.14778/3352063.3352135) 
[^34]: Baron Schwartz. [Why Percentiles Don’t Work the Way You Think](https://orangematter.solarwinds.com/2016/11/18/why-percentiles-dont-work-the-way-you-think/). *solarwinds.com*, November 2016. Archived at [perma.cc/469T-6UGB](https://perma.cc/469T-6UGB) 
[^35]: Walter L. Heimerdinger and Charles B. Weinstock. [A Conceptual Framework for System Fault Tolerance](https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/TechnicalReport/1992_005_001_16112.pdf). Technical Report CMU/SEI-92-TR-033, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, October 1992. Archived at [perma.cc/GD2V-DMJW](https://perma.cc/GD2V-DMJW) 
[^36]: Felix C. Gärtner. [Fundamentals of fault-tolerant distributed computing in asynchronous environments](https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/311531.311532). *ACM Computing Surveys*, volume 31, issue 1, pages 1–26, March 1999. [doi:10.1145/311531.311532](https://doi.org/10.1145/311531.311532) 
[^37]: Algirdas Avižienis, Jean-Claude Laprie, Brian Randell, and Carl Landwehr. [Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of Dependable and Secure Computing](https://hdl.handle.net/1903/6459). *IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing*, volume 1, issue 1, January 2004. [doi:10.1109/TDSC.2004.2](https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2004.2) 
[^38]: Ding Yuan, Yu Luo, Xin Zhuang, Guilherme Renna Rodrigues, Xu Zhao, Yongle Zhang, Pranay U. Jain, and Michael Stumm. [Simple Testing Can Prevent Most Critical Failures: An Analysis of Production Failures in Distributed Data-Intensive Systems](https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/osdi14/osdi14-paper-yuan.pdf). At *11th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation* (OSDI), October 2014. 
[^39]: Casey Rosenthal and Nora Jones. [*Chaos Engineering*](https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/chaos-engineering/9781492043850/). O’Reilly Media, April 2020. ISBN: 9781492043867 
[^40]: Eduardo Pinheiro, Wolf-Dietrich Weber, and Luiz Andre Barroso. [Failure Trends in a Large Disk Drive Population](https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/fast07/tech/full_papers/pinheiro/pinheiro_old.pdf). At *5th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies* (FAST), February 2007. 
[^41]: Bianca Schroeder and Garth A. Gibson. [Disk failures in the real world: What does an MTTF of 1,000,000 hours mean to you?](https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/fast07/tech/schroeder/schroeder.pdf) At *5th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies* (FAST), February 2007. 
[^42]: Andy Klein. [Backblaze Drive Stats for Q2 2021](https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-drive-stats-for-q2-2021/). *backblaze.com*, August 2021. Archived at [perma.cc/2943-UD5E](https://perma.cc/2943-UD5E) 
[^43]: Iyswarya Narayanan, Di Wang, Myeongjae Jeon, Bikash Sharma, Laura Caulfield, Anand Sivasubramaniam, Ben Cutler, Jie Liu, Badriddine Khessib, and Kushagra Vaid. [SSD Failures in Datacenters: What? When? and Why?](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/a7-narayanan.pdf) At *9th ACM International on Systems and Storage Conference* (SYSTOR), June 2016. [doi:10.1145/2928275.2928278](https://doi.org/10.1145/2928275.2928278) 
[^44]: Alibaba Cloud Storage Team. [Storage System Design Analysis: Factors Affecting NVMe SSD Performance (1)](https://www.alibabacloud.com/blog/594375). *alibabacloud.com*, January 2019. Archived at [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20230522005034/https%3A//www.alibabacloud.com/blog/594375) 
[^45]: Bianca Schroeder, Raghav Lagisetty, and Arif Merchant. [Flash Reliability in Production: The Expected and the Unexpected](https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/fast16/fast16-papers-schroeder.pdf). At *14th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies* (FAST), February 2016. 
[^46]: Jacob Alter, Ji Xue, Alma Dimnaku, and Evgenia Smirni. [SSD failures in the field: symptoms, causes, and prediction models](https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3295500.3356172). At *International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis* (SC), November 2019. [doi:10.1145/3295500.3356172](https://doi.org/10.1145/3295500.3356172) 
[^47]: Daniel Ford, François Labelle, Florentina I. Popovici, Murray Stokely, Van-Anh Truong, Luiz Barroso, Carrie Grimes, and Sean Quinlan. [Availability in Globally Distributed Storage Systems](https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/osdi10/tech/full_papers/Ford.pdf). At *9th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation* (OSDI), October 2010. 
[^48]: Kashi Venkatesh Vishwanath and Nachiappan Nagappan. [Characterizing Cloud Computing Hardware Reliability](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/socc088-vishwanath.pdf). At *1st ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing* (SoCC), June 2010. [doi:10.1145/1807128.1807161](https://doi.org/10.1145/1807128.1807161) 
[^49]: Peter H. Hochschild, Paul Turner, Jeffrey C. Mogul, Rama Govindaraju, Parthasarathy Ranganathan, David E. Culler, and Amin Vahdat. [Cores that don’t count](https://sigops.org/s/conferences/hotos/2021/papers/hotos21-s01-hochschild.pdf). At *Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems* (HotOS), June 2021. [doi:10.1145/3458336.3465297](https://doi.org/10.1145/3458336.3465297) 
[^50]: Harish Dattatraya Dixit, Sneha Pendharkar, Matt Beadon, Chris Mason, Tejasvi Chakravarthy, Bharath Muthiah, and Sriram Sankar. [Silent Data Corruptions at Scale](https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.11245). *arXiv:2102.11245*, February 2021. 
[^51]: Diogo Behrens, Marco Serafini, Sergei Arnautov, Flavio P. Junqueira, and Christof Fetzer. [Scalable Error Isolation for Distributed Systems](https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi15/technical-sessions/presentation/behrens). At *12th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation* (NSDI), May 2015. 
[^52]: Bianca Schroeder, Eduardo Pinheiro, and Wolf-Dietrich Weber. [DRAM Errors in the Wild: A Large-Scale Field Study](https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/35162.pdf). At *11th International Joint Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems* (SIGMETRICS), June 2009. [doi:10.1145/1555349.1555372](https://doi.org/10.1145/1555349.1555372) 
[^53]: Yoongu Kim, Ross Daly, Jeremie Kim, Chris Fallin, Ji Hye Lee, Donghyuk Lee, Chris Wilkerson, Konrad Lai, and Onur Mutlu. [Flipping Bits in Memory Without Accessing Them: An Experimental Study of DRAM Disturbance Errors](https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~yoonguk/papers/kim-isca14.pdf). At *41st Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture* (ISCA), June 2014. [doi:10.5555/2665671.2665726](https://doi.org/10.5555/2665671.2665726) 
[^54]: Tim Bray. [Worst Case](https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/202x/2021/10/08/The-WOrst-Case). *tbray.org*, October 2021. Archived at [perma.cc/4QQM-RTHN](https://perma.cc/4QQM-RTHN) 
[^55]: Sangeetha Abdu Jyothi. [Solar Superstorms: Planning for an Internet Apocalypse](https://ics.uci.edu/~sabdujyo/papers/sigcomm21-cme.pdf). At *ACM SIGCOMM Conferene*, August 2021. [doi:10.1145/3452296.3472916](https://doi.org/10.1145/3452296.3472916) 
[^56]: Adrian Cockcroft. [Failure Modes and Continuous Resilience](https://adrianco.medium.com/failure-modes-and-continuous-resilience-6553078caad5). *adrianco.medium.com*, November 2019. Archived at [perma.cc/7SYS-BVJP](https://perma.cc/7SYS-BVJP) 
[^57]: Shujie Han, Patrick P. C. Lee, Fan Xu, Yi Liu, Cheng He, and Jiongzhou Liu. [An In-Depth Study of Correlated Failures in Production SSD-Based Data Centers](https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast21/presentation/han). At *19th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies* (FAST), February 2021. 
[^58]: Edmund B. Nightingale, John R. Douceur, and Vince Orgovan. [Cycles, Cells and Platters: An Empirical Analysis of Hardware Failures on a Million Consumer PCs](https://eurosys2011.cs.uni-salzburg.at/pdf/eurosys2011-nightingale.pdf). At *6th European Conference on Computer Systems* (EuroSys), April 2011. [doi:10.1145/1966445.1966477](https://doi.org/10.1145/1966445.1966477) 
[^59]: Haryadi S. Gunawi, Mingzhe Hao, Tanakorn Leesatapornwongsa, Tiratat Patana-anake, Thanh Do, Jeffry Adityatama, Kurnia J. Eliazar, Agung Laksono, Jeffrey F. Lukman, Vincentius Martin, and Anang D. Satria. [What Bugs Live in the Cloud?](https://ucare.cs.uchicago.edu/pdf/socc14-cbs.pdf) At *5th ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing* (SoCC), November 2014. [doi:10.1145/2670979.2670986](https://doi.org/10.1145/2670979.2670986) 
[^60]: Jay Kreps. [Getting Real About Distributed System Reliability](https://blog.empathybox.com/post/19574936361/getting-real-about-distributed-system-reliability). *blog.empathybox.com*, March 2012. Archived at [perma.cc/9B5Q-AEBW](https://perma.cc/9B5Q-AEBW) 
[^61]: Nelson Minar. [Leap Second Crashes Half the Internet](https://www.somebits.com/weblog/tech/bad/leap-second-2012.html). *somebits.com*, July 2012. Archived at [perma.cc/2WB8-D6EU](https://perma.cc/2WB8-D6EU) 
[^62]: Hewlett Packard Enterprise. [Support Alerts – Customer Bulletin a00092491en\_us](https://support.hpe.com/hpesc/public/docDisplay?docId=emr_na-a00092491en_us). *support.hpe.com*, November 2019. Archived at [perma.cc/S5F6-7ZAC](https://perma.cc/S5F6-7ZAC) 
[^63]: Lorin Hochstein. [awesome limits](https://github.com/lorin/awesome-limits). *github.com*, November 2020. Archived at [perma.cc/3R5M-E5Q4](https://perma.cc/3R5M-E5Q4) 
[^64]: Caitie McCaffrey. [Clients Are Jerks: AKA How Halo 4 DoSed the Services at Launch & How We Survived](https://www.caitiem.com/2015/06/23/clients-are-jerks-aka-how-halo-4-dosed-the-services-at-launch-how-we-survived/). *caitiem.com*, June 2015. Archived at [perma.cc/MXX4-W373](https://perma.cc/MXX4-W373) 
[^65]: Lilia Tang, Chaitanya Bhandari, Yongle Zhang, Anna Karanika, Shuyang Ji, Indranil Gupta, and Tianyin Xu. [Fail through the Cracks: Cross-System Interaction Failures in Modern Cloud Systems](https://tianyin.github.io/pub/csi-failures.pdf). At *18th European Conference on Computer Systems* (EuroSys), May 2023. [doi:10.1145/3552326.3587448](https://doi.org/10.1145/3552326.3587448) 
[^66]: Mike Ulrich. [Addressing Cascading Failures](https://sre.google/sre-book/addressing-cascading-failures/). In Betsy Beyer, Jennifer Petoff, Chris Jones, and Niall Richard Murphy (ed). [*Site Reliability Engineering: How Google Runs Production Systems*](https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/site-reliability-engineering/9781491929117/). O’Reilly Media, 2016. ISBN: 9781491929124 
[^67]: Harri Faßbender. [Cascading failures in large-scale distributed systems](https://blog.mi.hdm-stuttgart.de/index.php/2022/03/03/cascading-failures-in-large-scale-distributed-systems/). *blog.mi.hdm-stuttgart.de*, March 2022. Archived at [perma.cc/K7VY-YJRX](https://perma.cc/K7VY-YJRX) 
[^68]: Richard I. Cook. [How Complex Systems Fail](https://www.adaptivecapacitylabs.com/HowComplexSystemsFail.pdf). Cognitive Technologies Laboratory, April 2000. Archived at [perma.cc/RDS6-2YVA](https://perma.cc/RDS6-2YVA) 
[^69]: David D. Woods. [STELLA: Report from the SNAFUcatchers Workshop on Coping With Complexity](https://snafucatchers.github.io/). *snafucatchers.github.io*, March 2017. Archived at [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20230306130131/https%3A//snafucatchers.github.io/) 
[^70]: David Oppenheimer, Archana Ganapathi, and David A. Patterson. [Why Do Internet Services Fail, and What Can Be Done About It?](https://static.usenix.org/events/usits03/tech/full_papers/oppenheimer/oppenheimer.pdf) At *4th USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems* (USITS), March 2003. 
[^71]: Sidney Dekker. [*The Field Guide to Understanding ‘Human Error’, 3rd Edition*](https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/the-field-guide/9781317031833/). CRC Press, November 2017. ISBN: 9781472439055 
[^72]: Sidney Dekker. [*Drift into Failure: From Hunting Broken Components to Understanding Complex Systems*](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/9781315257396/drift-failure-sidney-dekker). CRC Press, 2011. ISBN: 9781315257396 
[^73]: John Allspaw. [Blameless PostMortems and a Just Culture](https://www.etsy.com/codeascraft/blameless-postmortems/). *etsy.com*, May 2012. Archived at [perma.cc/YMJ7-NTAP](https://perma.cc/YMJ7-NTAP) 
[^74]: Itzy Sabo. [Uptime Guarantees — A Pragmatic Perspective](https://world.hey.com/itzy/uptime-guarantees-a-pragmatic-perspective-736d7ea4). *world.hey.com*, March 2023. Archived at [perma.cc/F7TU-78JB](https://perma.cc/F7TU-78JB) 
[^75]: Michael Jurewitz. [The Human Impact of Bugs](http://jury.me/blog/2013/3/14/the-human-impact-of-bugs). *jury.me*, March 2013. Archived at [perma.cc/5KQ4-VDYL](https://perma.cc/5KQ4-VDYL) 
[^76]: Mark Halper. [How Software Bugs led to ‘One of the Greatest Miscarriages of Justice’ in British History](https://cacm.acm.org/news/how-software-bugs-led-to-one-of-the-greatest-miscarriages-of-justice-in-british-history/). *Communications of the ACM*, January 2025. [doi:10.1145/3703779](https://doi.org/10.1145/3703779) 
[^77]: Nicholas Bohm, James Christie, Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bev Littlewood, Paul Marshall, Stephen Mason, Martin Newby, Steven J. Murdoch, Harold Thimbleby, and Martyn Thomas. [The legal rule that computers are presumed to be operating correctly – unforeseen and unjust consequences](https://www.benthamsgaze.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/briefing-presumption-that-computers-are-reliable.pdf). Briefing note, *benthamsgaze.org*, June 2022. Archived at [perma.cc/WQ6X-TMW4](https://perma.cc/WQ6X-TMW4) 
[^78]: Dan McKinley. [Choose Boring Technology](https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology). *mcfunley.com*, March 2015. Archived at [perma.cc/7QW7-J4YP](https://perma.cc/7QW7-J4YP) 
[^79]: Andy Warfield. [Building and operating a pretty big storage system called S3](https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2023/07/building-and-operating-a-pretty-big-storage-system.html). *allthingsdistributed.com*, July 2023. Archived at [perma.cc/7LPK-TP7V](https://perma.cc/7LPK-TP7V) 
[^80]: Marc Brooker. [Surprising Scalability of Multitenancy](https://brooker.co.za/blog/2023/03/23/economics.html). *brooker.co.za*, March 2023. Archived at [perma.cc/ZZD9-VV8T](https://perma.cc/ZZD9-VV8T) 
[^81]: Ben Stopford. [Shared Nothing vs. Shared Disk Architectures: An Independent View](http://www.benstopford.com/2009/11/24/understanding-the-shared-nothing-architecture/). *benstopford.com*, November 2009. Archived at [perma.cc/7BXH-EDUR](https://perma.cc/7BXH-EDUR) 
[^82]: Michael Stonebraker. [The Case for Shared Nothing](https://dsf.berkeley.edu/papers/hpts85-nothing.pdf). *IEEE Database Engineering Bulletin*, volume 9, issue 1, pages 4–9, March 1986. 
[^83]: Panagiotis Antonopoulos, Alex Budovski, Cristian Diaconu, Alejandro Hernandez Saenz, Jack Hu, Hanuma Kodavalla, Donald Kossmann, Sandeep Lingam, Umar Farooq Minhas, Naveen Prakash, Vijendra Purohit, Hugh Qu, Chaitanya Sreenivas Ravella, Krystyna Reisteter, Sheetal Shrotri, Dixin Tang, and Vikram Wakade. [Socrates: The New SQL Server in the Cloud](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2019/05/socrates.pdf). At *ACM International Conference on Management of Data* (SIGMOD), pages 1743–1756, June 2019. [doi:10.1145/3299869.3314047](https://doi.org/10.1145/3299869.3314047) 
[^84]: Sam Newman. [*Building Microservices*, second edition](https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/building-microservices-2nd/9781492034018/). O’Reilly Media, 2021. ISBN: 9781492034025 
[^85]: Nathan Ensmenger. [When Good Software Goes Bad: The Surprising Durability of an Ephemeral Technology](https://themaintainers.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ensmenger-maintainers-v2.pdf). At *The Maintainers Conference*, April 2016. Archived at [perma.cc/ZXT4-HGZB](https://perma.cc/ZXT4-HGZB) 
[^86]: Robert L. Glass. [*Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering*](https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/facts-and-fallacies/0321117425/). Addison-Wesley Professional, October 2002. ISBN: 9780321117427 
[^87]: Marianne Bellotti. [*Kill It with Fire*](https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/kill-it-with/9781098128883/). No Starch Press, April 2021. ISBN: 9781718501188 
[^88]: Lisanne Bainbridge. [Ironies of automation](https://www.adaptivecapacitylabs.com/IroniesOfAutomation-Bainbridge83.pdf). *Automatica*, volume 19, issue 6, pages 775–779, November 1983. [doi:10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8](https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098%2883%2990046-8) 
[^89]: James Hamilton. [On Designing and Deploying Internet-Scale Services](https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/lisa07/tech/full_papers/hamilton/hamilton.pdf). At *21st Large Installation System Administration Conference* (LISA), November 2007. 
[^90]: Dotan Horovits. [Open Source for Better Observability](https://horovits.medium.com/open-source-for-better-observability-8c65b5630561). *horovits.medium.com*, October 2021. Archived at [perma.cc/R2HD-U2ZT](https://perma.cc/R2HD-U2ZT) 
[^91]: Brian Foote and Joseph Yoder. [Big Ball of Mud](http://www.laputan.org/pub/foote/mud.pdf). At *4th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs* (PLoP), September 1997. Archived at [perma.cc/4GUP-2PBV](https://perma.cc/4GUP-2PBV) 
[^92]: Marc Brooker. [What is a simple system?](https://brooker.co.za/blog/2022/05/03/simplicity.html) *brooker.co.za*, May 2022. Archived at [perma.cc/U72T-BFVE](https://perma.cc/U72T-BFVE) 
[^93]: Frederick P. Brooks. [No Silver Bullet – Essence and Accident in Software Engineering](https://worrydream.com/refs/Brooks_1986_-_No_Silver_Bullet.pdf). In [*The Mythical Man-Month*](https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/mythical-man-month-the/0201835959/), Anniversary edition, Addison-Wesley, 1995. ISBN: 9780201835953 
[^94]: Dan Luu. [Against essential and accidental complexity](https://danluu.com/essential-complexity/). *danluu.com*, December 2020. Archived at [perma.cc/H5ES-69KC](https://perma.cc/H5ES-69KC) 
[^95]: Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides. [*Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software*](https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/design-patterns-elements/0201633612/). Addison-Wesley Professional, October 1994. ISBN: 9780201633610 
[^96]: Eric Evans. [*Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software*](https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/domain-driven-design-tackling/0321125215/). Addison-Wesley Professional, August 2003. ISBN: 9780321125217 
[^97]: Hongyu Pei Breivold, Ivica Crnkovic, and Peter J. Eriksson. [Analyzing Software Evolvability](https://www.es.mdh.se/pdf_publications/1251.pdf). at *32nd Annual IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference* (COMPSAC), July 2008. [doi:10.1109/COMPSAC.2008.50](https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2008.50) 
[^98]: Enrico Zaninotto. [From X programming to the X organisation](https://martinfowler.com/articles/zaninotto.pdf). At *XP Conference*, May 2002. Archived at [perma.cc/R9AR-QCKZ](https://perma.cc/R9AR-QCKZ)

