Compare Scenarios

Migration Step 1

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. E-Commerce Order Platform: triggered by 'Payment provider timeout causing full checkout rollback and '. Notification Delivery Platform: triggered by 'Notification provider latency (SendGrid, FCM) adding 200–500'.

Migration Step 2

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. E-Commerce Order Platform: triggered by 'Product search p99 > 1s; faceted navigation (category + pric'. Notification Delivery Platform: triggered by 'Product requirement to add mobile push notifications and SMS'.

Migration Step 3

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. E-Commerce Order Platform: triggered by 'Email/push notification provider timeouts causing checkout l'. Notification Delivery Platform: triggered by 'User complaints about notification volume increasing; spam c'.

PostgreSQL pg_locks showing high RowExclusiveLock contention on inventory_items for specific sku_ids; checkout p99 > 2s for contended SKUs; deadlock errors appearing in application logs during sale events; effective checkout throughput for hot SKUs well below per-request checkout latency would predict

Tier 1: Flash Sale Inventory Contention: Concurrent saga checkout attempts competing for the same inventory row via row-level locking. Recommended evolution: Introduce a per-SKU checkout serialization queue at the application layer : all concurrent checkout requests for the same SKU are queued and processed serially, converting lock contention into queue latency. Alternatively, use PostgreSQL advisory locks with non-blocking trylock: requests that cannot acquire the lock immediately return a "sold out" response rather than queuing. For very high flash sale volumes, pre-allocate inventory slots (reserve N slots per sale event, each slot is a row with one reservation) to spread lock contention across N rows instead of one. .

Checkout p99 tracking payment provider p99 almost linearly; connection pool utilization on the payment service rising during payment provider slowdowns; circuit breaker trip events appearing in payment service metrics; saga timeout events correlated with payment provider latency spikes

Tier 2: Payment Provider Latency Amplifying Checkout Latency: Checkout saga holding a database connection and an inventory reservation open for the duration of the payment provider call: payment latency directly amplifies connection pool pressure. Recommended evolution: Decouple the payment step from the synchronous checkout saga: reserve inventory and create the order record synchronously, then process payment asynchronously. The customer receives an "order confirmed, payment processing" state immediately; the payment step runs as a separate saga step triggered by an event. This reduces the synchronous checkout latency to the inventory reservation time, not the payment provider round-trip time. .

RabbitMQ queue depth for email channel growing > 100k messages; SendGrid 429 responses visible in delivery worker logs; email delivery p95 latency > 2 minutes; delivery worker retry thread pool saturated; dead-letter queue receiving messages from retry exhaustion despite provider being available

Tier 1: Provider Rate Limit Backlog: Delivery worker retry policy not aligned with provider rate limit reset window; workers retrying before the rate limit has reset, accumulating failed attempts. Recommended evolution: Implement provider-aware retry backoff: on 429 response, parse the Retry-After header and schedule the next retry attempt at exactly that time, not on a fixed exponential backoff schedule; add per-provider circuit breakers that open after 5 consecutive 429s and attempt a probe request at the retry-after interval; scale email consumer replicas to process the backlog faster when the rate limit window resets .

Kafka consumer lag for notification event consumers growing; notification delivery volume much higher than upstream business event volume (ratio > 5:1); RabbitMQ aggregate message rate across all channel queues elevated; one upstream event type (e.g., new_comment) accounting for disproportionate share of notification volume

Tier 2: Notification Fan-Out Amplification: Upstream event fan-out generating more notification sends per event than expected; or a notification rule misconfiguration triggering notifications for every event regardless of user preference. Recommended evolution: Audit notification fan-out ratio per upstream event type; add fan-out cost metrics (notifications_generated per upstream event) as a monitored SLA; implement notification preference filtering before fan-out: only generate delivery attempts for users with the corresponding notification type enabled; implement a notification aggregation layer that batches multiple low-priority events into digest notifications rather than individual sends .