# System Design > System design methodology — requirements, capacity estimation, component design, trade-offs. Use when designing a new distributed system, evaluating an existing architecture for scalability or cost, performing back-of-envelope capacity estimation, or preparing for a system design review. - Skill: `projectious-work/system-design` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add projectious-work/system-design` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/projectious-work/system-design/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Design & Media - Author: projectious-work (https://skillmd.com/u/projectious-work) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/projectious-work/system-design --- # System Design ## Intro System design starts with requirements, not boxes. Estimate capacity on the back of an envelope, draw a small high-level architecture, then deep-dive only the components that are unique or risky. Make trade-offs explicit — every design decision has a cost. ## Overview ### Gather requirements Always start with requirements. Split them into functional and non-functional. **Functional:** what does the system do? Core use cases (2-4 most important), user-facing vs internal features, data formats, and key end-to-end workflows. **Non-functional:** how well must it do it? - **Scale** — DAU, peak QPS, data volume - **Latency** — p50 and p99 targets - **Availability** — 99.9%, 99.99%, or higher (and the downtime budget that implies) - **Consistency** — strong or eventual, and which parts need which - **Durability** — RPO/RTO targets, can we lose data - **Security** — auth, encryption, compliance constraints - **Cost** — budget, managed vs self-hosted preference Do not over-specify. Focus on what differentiates this system from a generic CRUD app. ### Capacity estimation Numbers and formulas live in `references/estimation-cheatsheet.md`. Back-of-envelope framework: 1. **Users** — DAU -> peak concurrent -> requests per second 2. **Storage** — data per record * records per day * retention 3. **Bandwidth** — request size * QPS in + response size * QPS out 4. **Compute** — QPS / requests-per-instance = instance count State assumptions explicitly: read:write ratio (most systems are 10:1 to 100:1), peak-to-average ratio (typically 3x-10x), data growth rate (linear or exponential), and cache hit rate (often 80-95% for read-heavy workloads). ### High-level design Draw 5-10 major components. Start with the client and work inward. For each core use case, trace the data flow with numbered arrows. Place standard infrastructure where it belongs: load balancer, API gateway, CDN, cache, database, queue. For each kind of data, choose a store (relational, document, blob, cache, search index). Keep it simple first; add complexity only when requirements demand it. ### Component deep dives For each critical component, detail: - **API design** — endpoints, request/response formats, pagination - **Data model** — schema, indexing, partitioning/sharding key - **Scaling strategy** — horizontal vs vertical, stateless vs stateful - **Failure handling** — what happens when this component dies - **Caching** — what is cached, where (client, CDN, app, DB), TTL, invalidation Focus deep dives on components that are unique to this system or most likely to be bottlenecks. Don't deep-dive a stock load balancer. ### Trade-off analysis Every decision has trade-offs. State the side you chose and why, given the requirements: - **Consistency vs availability** — CAP theorem; in a partition you pick C or A - **Latency vs throughput** — batching raises throughput at the cost of latency - **Simplicity vs scalability** — simpler designs are easier to operate but may not scale - **Cost vs performance** — caching reduces latency but raises infrastructure cost - **Flexibility vs optimization** — denormalization speeds reads but complicates writes ### Scalability patterns - **Horizontal scaling** — stateless services behind a load balancer - **Database sharding** — partition by user ID, tenant ID, or region - **Read replicas** — offload reads, accept replication lag - **Caching layers** — local cache -> distributed cache (Redis) -> CDN - **Async processing** — push non-critical work onto background queues - **Event-driven decoupling** — pub/sub between producers and consumers - **Rate limiting** — token bucket, sliding window - **Circuit breakers** — prevent cascade failures when downstream is unhealthy ### Example workflows - **URL shortener:** create / redirect / analytics. 100M URLs/month, <100ms redirect, 99.99% availability. ~40 writes/s, ~4000 reads/s, ~10 TB over 5 years. Stateless API service -> Redis cache (hot URLs) -> sharded DB. Base62 encode a unique ID for short codes, CDN for redirect caching, async event stream for analytics. - **Real-time chat:** 1:1 and group messaging, presence, history. 50M DAU, <200ms delivery, eventual consistency for history. ~500K concurrent connections at peak, ~100K messages/s. WebSocket gateway sharded by user, message routing service, Cassandra (partitioned by chat_id) for storage, Redis for presence, push notifications for offline users. - **Social news feed:** post creation, feed generation, follow relationships. 500M DAU, feed loads <500ms, eventual consistency acceptable. ~10K posts/s writes, ~500K feed reads/s. Fan-out on write for users with <10K followers (precompute feeds in Redis), fan-out on read for celebrities (merge at read time). Sharded post storage, feed cache in Redis sorted sets, media in object storage behind a CDN. ## Gotchas Agent-specific failure modes — provider-neutral pause-and-self-check items: - **Drawing components before gathering requirements.** Starting with boxes and arrows before establishing functional requirements, scale, and consistency needs produces a design that answers "what architecture looks interesting" rather than "what does this system actually need to do." Always gather functional requirements and non-functional constraints first; let them determine the components. - **Skipping capacity estimation.** A design without back-of-envelope estimates has no basis for claiming it will work at the stated scale. "We'll add caching if we need it" is not an architecture — it is a hope. Estimate QPS, storage, and bandwidth before deciding on sharding, caching, or whether a single database will suffice. - **Defaulting to strong consistency everywhere.** Most operations in most systems can tolerate eventual consistency, and the cost of strong consistency — coordination overhead, reduced availability, latency — is significant. Defaulting to strong consistency "to be safe" means paying that cost unnecessarily. Identify which operations actually require it (financial transactions, inventory decrement) and use eventual consistency for everything else. - **Hidden single points of failure.** A design with load-balanced web servers, replicated databases, and a CDN may still have a single point of failure: the database primary, a single cache cluster, or an orchestrator with no failover. Explicitly check every component in the design for what happens if it fails; if the answer is "everything stops," that's a SPOF that needs redundancy. - **Premature sharding.** Database sharding adds significant operational complexity: cross-shard queries, resharding when boundaries are wrong, and consistency across shards. Most systems do not need sharding until they are well past what a single well-tuned primary with read replicas can handle. Design for sharding (choose a good shard key) but implement it only when measured data shows the single-node approach is insufficient. - **Caching without an invalidation strategy.** Adding a cache without specifying TTL, invalidation triggers, and cache-aside vs write-through strategy means the cache will eventually serve stale data indefinitely. "We'll figure out invalidation later" produces a cache that is harmful rather than helpful. Define the invalidation strategy before implementing the cache. - **Ignoring the cost of synchronous chains of services.** A request that calls Service A, which calls Service B, which calls Service C in series has a latency that is the sum of all three, and fails if any one of them fails. Beyond two or three hops, this becomes brittle and slow. Identify serial chains in the design and either parallelize calls, pre-compute results asynchronously, or collapse services. ## Full reference ### Powers of 2 | Power | Value | Approx | Common usage | |-------|-------|--------|--------------| | 2^10 | 1,024 | 1 Thousand | 1 KB | | 2^20 | 1,048,576 | 1 Million | 1 MB | | 2^30 | 1,073,741,824 | 1 Billion | 1 GB | | 2^40 | ~1.1 Trillion | 1 Trillion | 1 TB | Useful shortcuts: 1 million seconds ~ 12 days. 1 billion seconds ~ 32 years. ### Latency numbers every engineer should know | Operation | Time | |-----------|------| | L1 cache reference | 1 ns | | L2 cache reference | 4 ns | | Main memory reference | 100 ns | | Mutex lock/unlock | 17 ns | | SSD random read | 16 us | | Read 1 MB from memory | 3 us | | Read 1 MB sequentially from SSD | 50 us | | Read 1 MB sequentially from HDD | 825 us | | HDD random read | 2 ms | | Round trip within same datacenter | 500 us | | Round trip CA to Netherlands | 150 ms | Key takeaways: memory is ~100x faster than SSD for random access, SSD ~100x faster than HDD, intra-DC network ~0.5 ms, cross-continent ~150 ms. ### DAU to QPS conversion Formula: `QPS = DAU * actions_per_user_per_day / 86400` | DAU | Actions/User/Day | QPS (avg) | QPS (peak, 3x) | |------|------------------|-----------|----------------| | 1M | 10 | ~115 | ~350 | | 10M | 10 | ~1,150 | ~3,500 | | 100M | 10 | ~11,500 | ~35,000 | | 1B | 10 | ~115,000 | ~350,000 | Rule of thumb: 1M DAU * 10 actions/day ~ 100 QPS average, 300-500 QPS peak. ### Storage estimation | Data type | Typical size | |-----------|--------------| | User profile (text) | 1-5 KB | | Tweet / short post | 250 B - 1 KB | | Chat message | 100-500 B | | Photo (compressed) | 200 KB - 2 MB | | Video (1 min, compressed) | 5-50 MB | | Log entry | 200-500 B | | DB row (typical) | 500 B - 2 KB | Formula: `total = records_per_day * avg_size * retention_days`. Example: 10M messages/day * 500 bytes * 365 days * 5 years ~ 9 TB. ### Bandwidth Formula: `bandwidth = QPS * avg_size`. Example: 10K QPS * 5 KB average response = 50 MB/s = 400 Mbps outbound. ### Common capacity patterns - **1M DAU social app:** ~100 QPS avg, ~500 QPS peak. ~10 GB/day new data. ~5 TB over 2 years. 2-5 app servers, 1-2 DB servers, Redis cache. - **100M DAU messaging app:** ~50K QPS avg, ~200K QPS peak. ~500 GB/day messages. ~500 TB over 3 years. Sharded DB cluster, dedicated cache layer, WebSocket gateway fleet. - **1B DAU read-heavy platform:** ~500K QPS avg, ~2M QPS peak. Multi-region CDN mandatory. Read replicas plus 95%+ cache hit rate. Terabytes of bandwidth per day. ### Server capacity rules of thumb | Resource | Typical limit | |----------|---------------| | Single web server (simple API) | 1K-10K QPS | | Single Redis instance | 100K+ ops/s | | Single PostgreSQL (tuned) | 5K-20K QPS | | Single Kafka broker | 100K+ messages/s | | Single machine network | 1-10 Gbps | | Single machine connections | 10K-100K concurrent | ### Quick estimation framework 1. Start with DAU and read:write ratio. 2. Compute average and peak QPS. 3. Estimate storage per year. 4. Estimate bandwidth (QPS * size). 5. Divide QPS by per-server capacity to get instance count. 6. Add 2-3x headroom for growth and spikes. 7. Consider geographic distribution needs. ### Anti-patterns - **Drawing boxes before requirements** — leads to designs that solve the wrong problem. - **Skipping estimation** — "we'll scale when we get there" usually means the design cannot. - **Picking strong consistency by default** — most systems can tolerate eventual consistency for most operations, and the cost of strong consistency is high. - **Single point of failure hidden in plain sight** — usually the database, the load balancer, or a "smart" orchestrator. - **Caching without invalidation strategy** — stale reads outlive the bug that introduced them. - **Premature sharding** — shard when you have to, not before. The operational cost is real. - **Synchronous chains of more than 2-3 services** — latency multiplies and any one failure takes the chain down.