Compare Scenarios

Migration Step 1

Both scenarios define a migration step at this stage. Write-Heavy Transactional Platform: triggered by 'Dual-write inconsistency events observed in production: DB w'. 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. Write-Heavy Transactional Platform: triggered by 'Primary write CPU > 70% sustained during peak windows; WAL v'. 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. Write-Heavy Transactional Platform: triggered by 'Audit completeness requirements grow beyond point-in-time ba'. Notification Delivery Platform: triggered by 'User complaints about notification volume increasing; spam c'.

PgBouncer wait_queue > 0 sustained; application p99 write latency rising faster than PostgreSQL p99; pool_mode=transaction showing >80% utilization

Tier 1: Connection Pool Saturation: PgBouncer pool_size too small for write concurrency profile. Recommended evolution: Increase PgBouncer pool_size incrementally; profile transaction duration to right-size pool; consider separate pools for write-heavy and read-only workloads .

PostgreSQL checkpoint_completion_target warnings in logs; wal_buffers flushing more than once per second; pg_stat_bgwriter shows checkpoints_req rising; write p99 > 20ms without query explanation

Tier 2: WAL and Checkpoint Pressure: Write rate exceeding PostgreSQL's WAL flush and checkpoint throughput. Recommended evolution: Tune checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9; increase wal_buffers to 64MB; move PostgreSQL WAL to a dedicated NVMe volume separate from data directory .

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 .