- name
- system-design
- description
- Deep system design workflow—requirements, capacity, APIs, data, consistency, failure modes, trade-offs, and evolution. Use when preparing interviews, RFCs, greenfield systems, or major redesigns (microservices, multi-region, real-time).
System Design (Deep Workflow)
System design is structured decision-making under constraints. The output is not a diagram—it is clarity on requirements, explicit trade-offs, and a path to evolve when load and features change.
When to Offer This Workflow
Trigger conditions:
- “Design Twitter/Instagram/WhatsApp” (interview style)
- Greenfield service, major scale milestone, multi-region, or realtime needs
- Refactoring monolith—boundaries and data ownership questions
Initial offer:
Use seven stages: (1) clarify requirements, (2) capacity & SLO sketch, (3) high-level architecture, (4) data model & storage, (5) APIs & traffic patterns, (6) reliability & failure modes, (7) trade-offs & evolution. Ask interview mode (time-boxed) vs real project (depth).
Stage 1: Clarify Requirements
Goal: Functional and non-functional requirements explicit.
Functional
- Core user actions; read vs write ratio; search, ranking, notifications?
Non-functional
- Scale: DAU, QPS, data size, growth—orders of magnitude OK if unknown
- Latency: p95/p99 targets; sync vs async acceptable?
- Consistency: can reads be stale? global ordering needed?
- Durability: loss tolerance; audit; compliance
Out of Scope
- Explicitly list non-goals to prevent scope creep in interviews and real life
Exit condition: Problem statement one paragraph; constraints bullet list.
Stage 2: Capacity & SLO Sketch
Goal: Back-of-envelope math to sanity-check bottlenecks.
Rough math
- Requests/day → QPS peak with 3–10× factor if needed
- Storage/day; replication multiplier
- Bandwidth for large payloads (images, video)
SLO mindset
- Availability vs cost; strong consistency vs latency
Exit condition: Identified likely bottleneck class: DB, network, fan-out, storage.
Stage 3: High-Level Architecture
Goal: Boxes and arrows with reasons.
Typical layers
- Clients → LB/API → services → caches/queues → databases/object storage
- CDN for static and cacheable API responses when applicable
- Async processing for heavy work (indexing, emails, ML)
Principles
- Separation of read/write (CQRS) only when justified by scale
- Idempotent workers; at-least-once messaging assumptions
Exit condition: Diagram + why not simpler (monolith) answered in one paragraph.
Stage 4: Data Model & Storage
Goal: Choose stores for access patterns, not buzzwords.
Questions
- Relational vs document vs wide-column vs graph—query patterns first
- Sharding key if huge scale; hot partitions risk
- Caching: what, TTL, invalidation
- Search: inverted index service (Elasticsearch, etc.) vs DB full-text
Consistency
- Transactions boundaries; sagas for cross-service consistency; eventual where OK
Exit condition: Schema sketch or entity list; read/write paths for top 3 operations.
Stage 5: APIs & Traffic Patterns
Goal: Interface design and operational behavior.
REST vs RPC vs GraphQL
- Trade-offs: coupling, overfetching, caching, team boundaries
Realtime
- WebSockets/SSE; presence; ordering; backpressure
Rate limiting & auth
- Gateway enforcement; user vs service identity
Exit condition: Example APIs or events for core flows; pagination strategy.
Stage 6: Reliability & Failure Modes
Goal: Failure is normal—design degradation.
Consider
- Retries with backoff; timeouts everywhere; circuit breakers
- Partial outages: read-only mode, stale cache, queue backlog
- Disaster: backup/restore, multi-region (active-active vs DR)
Observability
- Metrics, logs, traces; SLOs for critical paths
Exit condition: Top 5 failure scenarios + mitigation each.
Stage 7: Trade-offs & Evolution
Goal: Show maturity—v1 vs v2 path.
Articulate
- What you build first vs later; feature flags; strangler patterns
- Interview: summarize bottleneck and future scaling in 60 seconds
Final Review Checklist
- [ ] Requirements and non-goals clear
- [ ] Rough capacity points to bottleneck
- [ ] Architecture justified vs simpler alternatives
- [ ] Data stores match access patterns + consistency needs
- [ ] APIs/events and failure modes addressed
- [ ] Evolution path stated
Tips for Effective Guidance
- Interview: time-box depth—breadth first, then zoom one area on request.
- Always mention hot keys, fan-out, and backpressure for scale.
- Distinguish exactly-once myth—usually at-least-once + idempotency.
Handling Deviations
- Small system: still run stages lightly—habit prevents over-engineering later.
- Existing system: focus on incremental changes and data migration risks.