Solved: Hot take: The outage isn’t the problem everyone going down at once is

Source: Dev.to

TL;DR – Widespread, correlated outages are far more catastrophic than isolated component failures in distributed systems. To prevent synchronized collapses you should:

1. Diversify infrastructure (multi‑cloud / multi‑region).
2. Adopt asynchronous, event‑driven communication to decouple services.
3. Implement proactive resilience patterns (circuit breakers, bulkheads).
4. Validate resilience with chaos engineering and Game Days.

Why Synchronized Failures Matter

When an outage occurs, the instinct is to hunt the failing component.
Often the real problem is the synchronization of failures across seemingly independent systems.

A single service outage is painful; an entire ecosystem collapsing simultaneously is a catastrophic failure mode that challenges the robustness of modern distributed architectures. Shared infrastructure, cloud services, and common libraries make systems inherently susceptible to correlated failures. When a shared dependency falters, the ripple effect can become a tsunami that takes down every application that relies on it—or even every application within a particular fault domain.

Recognising Correlated Failures

The signs are dramatic and widespread:

• Regional Cloud Provider Outages – e.g., an AWS Availability Zone or Google Cloud region goes down, taking every service hosted there offline.
• Shared Dependency Collapse – authentication service, message queue, or primary database fails, halting all dependent micro‑services simultaneously.
• Cascading Resource Exhaustion – a traffic spike or bug exhausts CPU, memory, or network resources, propagating pressure upstream/downstream and causing widespread unavailability.
• Common Library / Configuration Bug – a buggy library or mis‑configuration pushed centrally propagates instantly to all instances.
• Rate Limiter / Quota Breach – a critical third‑party API or internal service enforces limits; multiple services hit the limit concurrently and are throttled together.

These scenarios expose a critical vulnerability: failure‑mode coupling despite architectural loose coupling.

Breaking the Synchronisation

The most direct way to combat synchronized failures is to break the synchronisation by diversifying infrastructure, technology stacks, and operational patterns, thereby creating independent fault domains.

Infrastructure Diversification

Example: Terraform for Multi‑Region Deployment (Conceptual)

# Define provider aliases for different AWS regions
provider "aws" {
  region = "us-east-1"
  alias  = "primary"
}

provider "aws" {
  region = "us-west-2"
  alias  = "secondary"
}

# Deploy an EC2 instance in us-east-1
resource "aws_instance" "app_primary" {
  provider      = aws.primary
  ami           = "ami-0abcdef1234567890" # Replace with your AMI
  instance_type = "t3.medium"
  tags = {
    Name = "MyApp-Primary"
  }
}

# Deploy an EC2 instance in us-west-2
resource "aws_instance" "app_secondary" {
  provider      = aws.secondary
  ami           = "ami-0fedcba9876543210" # Replace with your AMI
  instance_type = "t3.medium"
  tags = {
    Name = "MyApp-Secondary"
  }
}

# Add Route 53 (or another DNS/traffic‑management service) to route traffic dynamically.

Decoupling via Asynchronous Communication

Synchronous HTTP calls create tight coupling: a slow or unavailable downstream service blocks the upstream caller, potentially causing cascading failures.

Shift to asynchronous, event‑driven communication (e.g., Kafka, RabbitMQ, Amazon SQS) so services can operate independently and tolerate transient failures.

Benefit: A producer can continue to emit messages even if a consumer is temporarily down; the consumer processes them once it recovers, preventing direct service‑to‑service failure propagation.

Example: Producer Sending a Message to SQS (Python)

import boto3
import json

sqs = boto3.client('sqs')
queue_url = 'https://sqs.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/123456789012/my-queue'

def send_message(payload: dict):
    response = sqs.send_message(
        QueueUrl=queue_url,
        MessageBody=json.dumps(payload)
    )
    return response['MessageId']

# Example usage
msg_id = send_message({"event": "order_created", "order_id": 42})
print(f"Message sent with ID: {msg_id}")

Proactive Resilience Patterns

Validating Resilience: Chaos Engineering & Game Days

1. Chaos Engineering – Intentionally inject failures (e.g., kill pods, cut network, throttle latency) to verify that the system behaves as expected.
2. Game Days – Run coordinated, realistic outage simulations with the entire on‑call team to practice detection, response, and post‑mortem processes.

These practices uncover latent vulnerabilities, improve operational readiness, and reinforce a culture of resilience.

Take‑away Checklist

• Map shared dependencies and identify single points of correlated failure.
• Diversify across regions, zones, and cloud providers where feasible.
• Adopt asynchronous messaging for inter‑service communication.
• Implement circuit breakers, bulkheads, retries, and timeouts in every service.
• Schedule regular chaos experiments and Game Days to validate assumptions.
• Document runbooks for failover, recovery, and post‑mortem analysis.

By breaking the synchronization of failures, you turn catastrophic, ecosystem‑wide outages into manageable, isolated incidents—keeping your distributed system robust, resilient, and ready for the unexpected.

Sending Events to Amazon SQS

import json
import boto3

sqs = boto3.client('sqs', region_name='us-east-1')
queue_url = 'https://sqs.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/123456789012/my-event-queue'

def send_event(event_data):
    try:
        response = sqs.send_message(
            QueueUrl=queue_url,
            MessageBody=json.dumps(event_data),
            DelaySeconds=0
        )
        print(f"Message sent: {response['MessageId']}")
    except Exception as e:
        print(f"Error sending message: {e}")

# Example usage
send_event({"orderId": "12345", "status": "processed", "userId": "user1"})

Even with diversification, dependencies exist. Resilience patterns are crucial for managing these dependencies gracefully, preventing localized failures from escalating into widespread outages.

Circuit Breaker

A circuit breaker prevents a failing service from being called repeatedly, allowing it time to recover and protecting the calling service from being overloaded by waiting for a timeout. When a service call fails too often, the circuit opens, and subsequent calls fail fast without attempting to reach the unhealthy service. After a configurable delay, the circuit enters a half‑open state, allowing a few test requests to pass through. If these succeed, the circuit closes again.

Example: Conceptual Circuit Breaker Logic (Java‑like with Resilience4j)

// Using resilience4j in a Spring Boot application
import io.github.resilience4j.circuitbreaker.annotation.CircuitBreaker;
import org.springframework.stereotype.Service;

@Service
public class ExternalApiService {

    private static final String EXTERNAL_SERVICE = "externalService";

    @CircuitBreaker(name = EXTERNAL_SERVICE, fallbackMethod = "getFallbackData")
    public String getDataFromExternalService() {
        // Simulate a call to an external service that might fail
        if (Math.random() < 0.3) { // 30% chance of failure
            throw new RuntimeException("External service unavailable!");
        }
        return "Data from external service";
    }

    private String getFallbackData(Throwable t) {
        System.err.println("Fallback triggered for external service: " + t.getMessage());
        return "Fallback data"; // Return cached data, default value, or empty response
    }
}

application.yml excerpt

resilience4j:
  circuitbreaker:
    instances:
      externalService:
        registerHealthIndicator: true
        slidingWindowType: COUNT_BASED
        slidingWindowSize: 10
        failureRateThreshold: 50
        waitDurationInOpenState: 5s

Bulkhead

Inspired by shipbuilding, bulkheads divide a ship into watertight compartments. In software, this means isolating components to prevent a failure in one from sinking the entire application. This can be achieved through separate thread pools, connection pools, or even distinct process containers for different functionalities or external dependencies.

Example: Separate Thread Pools for Different External Services

// Java ExecutorService example for bulkheads
ExecutorService authServiceThreadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
ExecutorService paymentServiceThreadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);

public void performAuthentication(Runnable task) {
    authServiceThreadPool.submit(task);
}

public void processPayment(Runnable task) {
    paymentServiceThreadPool.submit(task);
}

// If authServiceThreadPool gets exhausted by slow authentication calls,
// paymentServiceThreadPool is unaffected and can continue processing payments.

Rate Limiting & Backpressure

Preventing your services from being overwhelmed is key. Implement rate limiters at API gateways, service boundaries, and internal components to control the incoming request volume. Backpressure mechanisms (e.g., in reactive streams or message queues) signal to upstream components to slow down when downstream services are at capacity, preventing resource exhaustion.

Comparison: Circuit Breaker vs. Bulkhead

Chaos Engineering

The best way to uncover synchronized failure modes is to actively look for them. Chaos Engineering is the discipline of experimenting on a system in production to build confidence in its capability to withstand turbulent conditions.

• Don’t wait for an outage to discover your weaknesses. Intentionally introduce failures into your system to observe how it behaves and identify latent vulnerabilities.
• This reveals potential synchronization points you hadn’t considered.

Typical Chaos Experiments

Example: Using LitmusChaos to Kill a Kubernetes Pod

# Apply a ChaosEngine definition (assuming LitmusChaos is installed)
apiVersion: litmuschaos.io/v1alpha1
kind: ChaosEngine
metadata:
  name: my-app-chaos
  namespace: default
spec:
  engineState: active
  chaosServiceAccount: litmus-admin
  experiments:
    - name: pod-delete
      spec:
        components:
          env:
            - name: APP_NAMESPACE
              value: 'default'
            - name: APP_LABEL
              value: 'app=my-app'
            - name: CHAOS_DURATION
              value: '30'   # seconds
            - name: CHAOS_INTERVAL
              value: '10'   # seconds between chaos injections

# Additional environment variables
- name: POD_LABEL
  value: 'app=my-service' # Target pods with this label
- name: PODS_AFFECTED_PERC
  value: '100' # Kill all matching pods

Beyond automated chaos experiments, schedule dedicated Game Days. These are structured exercises where teams simulate specific outage scenarios (e.g., “What if our primary payment gateway goes down for 3 hours?”) and practice their response. This tests not only the technical resilience of the system but also the operational readiness of the teams, communication protocols, and runbooks.

Key Aspects of a Successful Game Day

• Define clear objectives and hypotheses.
• Communicate clearly with stakeholders and provide an “off‑ramp” if things go critically wrong.
• Establish metrics for success and failure.
• Document findings and follow up on identified weaknesses.

The transition to distributed systems and cloud‑native architectures has introduced new complexities, chief among them the potential for highly correlated and widespread failures. Moving beyond the mindset of “fixing individual outages” to “preventing synchronized collapses” requires a fundamental shift in how we design, build, and operate our systems.

By actively diversifying our infrastructure, implementing robust resilience patterns, and proactively seeking out weaknesses through chaos engineering, we can build systems that not only recover from failure but are designed to withstand the inevitable turbulences of a highly interconnected world.

👉 Read the original article on TechResolve.blog