ALL LESSONSWEEK 50MONDAY

UNDERSTAND · SYSTEM DESIGN + CAPSTONE

Cache placement

Earn caches, jobs, and queues30–60 MINUTESCORE + PRACTICAL
01

GROUND

Problem

What becomes confusing, fragile, or impossible without understanding cache placement? This lesson answers that through explanation, a worked example, two runnable exercises, and a reference solution. No teacher-supplied worksheet is required.

Distributed architectures address concrete capacity, reliability, and coordination limits—but often arrive before those limits do.
02

LEARN

Concept explanation

Cache placement belongs to “Earn caches, jobs, and queues”. Caches, jobs, queues, and rate limits add failure modes and must be earned by measured constraint.

For cache placement, trace concrete input, state transition, output, and failure through an architecture decision tied to explicit requirements, estimates, state ownership, failure modes, and measured limits.

Start with requirements and estimates, choose the smallest architecture, locate its first bottleneck, then evolve one measured constraint at a time. Apply that model to supplied normal, boundary, and failure cases; each case below names its input and expected evidence.

Observable

Evidence produced by the cache placement experiment: output, state, trace, bytes, timing, or diagnostics.

Invariant

Condition that must remain true while inputs or implementation of cache placement change.

Boundary

Point where cache placement crosses ownership, representation, time, process, network, or trust.

Example bank

Compare normal, boundary, failure, and cross-layer cases. Predict each observation before revealing the explanation.

Baseline · one variable

SETUPEvolve notification system from synchronous send to durable job queue.

OBSERVERecovery avoids silent loss and documents duplicate policy, backoff, queue depth, and invalidation.

WHY IT MATTERSThis isolates the normal contract of cache placement; preserve its raw evidence as the control for every later comparison.

Boundary · same contract, harder input

SETUPDefine retries, idempotency, poison message, and per-user rate limit.

OBSERVERecord what remains invariant and the first representation, owner, size, or timing value that changes in Architecture notebook · load tests · traces · Git history.

WHY IT MATTERSA boundary example is useful only when one named dimension changes and everything else stays comparable.

Failure · evidence before repair

SETUPKill worker after side effect before acknowledgment.

OBSERVECapture the first divergence from the baseline, including exact input, diagnostic, state, and recovery result. Expected recovery: Recovery avoids silent loss and documents duplicate policy, backoff, queue depth, and invalidation.

WHY IT MATTERSThe diagnostic is part of the interface. Repair the proven cause, not the most visible symptom.

Cross-layer · follow ownership

SETUPTrace cache placement one layer below its usual abstraction through an architecture decision tied to explicit requirements, estimates, state ownership, failure modes, and measured limits.

OBSERVETrace requests, state ownership, capacity, queues, caches, replication, failure domains, recovery, operational load, and cost.

WHY IT MATTERSThe lower layer is earned when it explains evidence the current layer cannot. Otherwise keep cache placement at the simpler boundary.

03

SEE

Worked example

Start from supplied design.md. Focus: Evolve notification system from synchronous send to durable job queue.

  1. Run: Fill design.md, then verify every component traces to one stated requirement or measured constraint.
  2. Save baseline evidence. Trace requests, state ownership, capacity, queues, caches, replication, failure domains, recovery, operational load, and cost.
  3. Boundary case: Define retries, idempotency, poison message, and per-user rate limit.
  4. Failure case: Kill worker after side effect before acknowledgment.
RESULT
Recovery avoids silent loss and documents duplicate policy, backoff, queue depth, and invalidation. Starter-level baseline: Document names one action, target, non-goal, numeric estimate, state owner, request path, bottleneck, and recovery procedure.
04

START HERE

Starter material

PREREQUISITESA plain-text editor, Git, and tools named by the weekly slice. Start from a blank directory.

ONE-TIME SETUPmkdir reforging-capstone && cd reforging-capstone && git init

Create design.md, paste this exact content, then run the command below.

# cache placement

## Requirements
- One primary user action:
- One reliability target:
- One explicit non-goal:

## Estimate
- Requests/second:
- Stored bytes/day:
- Peak concurrent work:

## Smallest design
- State owner:
- Request path:
- First bottleneck:
- Recovery procedure:
RUNFill design.md, then verify every component traces to one stated requirement or measured constraint.

STOP / CLEANUPStop any process started by your slice with Ctrl+C; run git status before leaving.

05

DO WITH GUIDANCE

Guided exercise

Observe one rule: cache placement

  1. Normal case: Evolve notification system from synchronous send to durable job queue.
  2. Write predicted evidence from this named case before running starter.
  3. Change one input while holding environment constant.
  4. Run exact normal case. Save commands, inputs, outputs, and diagnostics in notebook.
  5. Explain changed evidence using lesson mental model in no more than five sentences.
Concrete guided solution
  1. Copy the supplied design.md unchanged and run: Fill design.md, then verify every component traces to one stated requirement or measured constraint.
  2. Write this prediction before inspecting output: Recovery avoids silent loss and documents duplicate policy, backoff, queue depth, and invalidation.
  3. Perform only the named normal case: Evolve notification system from synchronous send to durable job queue.
  4. Save the raw output, then annotate input → transition → evidence. Use Architecture notebook · load tests · traces · Git history to confirm the transition rather than inferring it.
  5. Compare prediction with evidence; if they differ, keep both and write the rule that explains the difference. Reference baseline: Document names one action, target, non-goal, numeric estimate, state owner, request path, bottleneck, and recovery procedure.
06

DO ALONE

Independent exercise

Find the boundary: cache placement

  1. Create second case from blank file: Define retries, idempotency, poison message, and per-user rate limit.
  2. Then create controlled failure: Kill worker after side effect before acknowledgment.
  3. Use Architecture notebook · load tests · traces · Git history to prove behavior, then repair controlled failure.
  4. Compare result against supplied acceptance checks and reference approach before marking complete.
Concrete independent solution
  1. Duplicate the starter into a clean comparison case; change only this boundary: Define retries, idempotency, poison message, and per-user rate limit.
  2. Save its evidence beside the baseline and identify the first changed value. Trace requests, state ownership, capacity, queues, caches, replication, failure domains, recovery, operational load, and cost.
  3. Create the exact controlled failure: Kill worker after side effect before acknowledgment.
  4. Reproduce baseline exactly: Evolve notification system from synchronous send to durable job queue.
  5. Write observation table with columns input, state transition, output, and failure for cache placement.
  6. Run boundary case unchanged: Define retries, idempotency, poison message, and per-user rate limit.
  7. Trigger controlled failure: Kill worker after side effect before acknowledgment.
  8. Compare evidence with reference outcome: Recovery avoids silent loss and documents duplicate policy, backoff, queue depth, and invalidation.
  9. Rerun baseline, boundary, and repaired failure together. Accept only if all reproduce: Recovery avoids silent loss and documents duplicate policy, backoff, queue depth, and invalidation.
07

COMPARE

Expected result

  • Recovery avoids silent loss and documents duplicate policy, backoff, queue depth, and invalidation.
  • Document names one action, target, non-goal, numeric estimate, state owner, request path, bottleneck, and recovery procedure.
  • Controlled cache placement failure produces captured evidence; repair restores stated invariant without hiding error.
08

PROVE

Acceptance checks

Lesson is complete only when every check is true. Each check is stored locally and travels with your JSON backup.

0/5 complete · saved on this device

09

UNSTICK

Hints

Reveal hints
  1. Start with supplied normal case exactly as written: Evolve notification system from synchronous send to durable job queue.
  2. For boundary case, change only named dimension: Define retries, idempotency, poison message, and per-user rate limit.
  3. If result is confusing, diff raw inputs and evidence before editing implementation.
  4. If tool shows nothing useful, move observation one boundary lower: representation, runtime, OS, or network.
10

VERIFY

Solution

Attempt both exercises before opening reference approach.

Reveal reference solution
  1. Run unmodified starter and preserve baseline evidence: Document names one action, target, non-goal, numeric estimate, state owner, request path, bottleneck, and recovery procedure.
  2. Reproduce baseline exactly: Evolve notification system from synchronous send to durable job queue.
  3. Write observation table with columns input, state transition, output, and failure for cache placement.
  4. Run boundary case unchanged: Define retries, idempotency, poison message, and per-user rate limit.
  5. Trigger controlled failure: Kill worker after side effect before acknowledgment.
  6. Compare evidence with reference outcome: Recovery avoids silent loss and documents duplicate policy, backoff, queue depth, and invalidation.
11

PREDICT · INSPECT · BREAK · DEBUG · MEASURE

Interrogate reality

Prediction: write expected output, state transition, ordering, and failure evidence before running either exercise.

Inspection: Trace requests, state ownership, queues, caches, replication lag, failure domains, cost, and recovery procedures.

Measurement: Estimate traffic, storage, latency, throughput, availability, consistency windows, operational load, and cost.

INSPECT

Capture raw evidence before explaining.

BREAK

Change one assumption and force controlled failure.

DEBUG

Find cause with Architecture notebook · load tests · traces · Git history before editing fix.

TOOL DRILL · keyboard only · record one retrievable command or shortcut
12

MASTERY + FRONTIER + BOUNDARY

Own the knowledge

TEACH

Explain cache placement at beginner, intermediate, and senior depth.

REBUILD

Recreate smallest useful example from blank file without notes or AI.

RETRIEVE

Schedule recall for day 1, 7, 30, and 90.

Creative frontier lab

Try first without opening the solutions. The constraints invite invention; the reference gives one concrete direction, never the only valid answer.

Constraint inversion

Re-solve cache placement by removing the most convenient abstraction. delete one service and recover the requirement with the smallest capable layer.

CONSTRAINTKeep the same inputs, observable result, and failure evidence; change the means, not the contract.

ORIGINAL IDEATurn subtraction into a design tool: the missing abstraction should reveal which responsibility it used to hide.

Reveal frontier solution
  1. Freeze the contract as three fixtures: Evolve notification system from synchronous send to durable job queue. / Define retries, idempotency, poison message, and per-user rate limit. / Kill worker after side effect before acknowledgment.
  2. List every convenience used by the starter; remove the highest-level one while preserving Fill design.md, then verify every component traces to one stated requirement or measured constraint..
  3. Implement the smallest replacement using delete one service and recover the requirement with the smallest capable layer.
  4. Run all fixtures and compare raw evidence. Keep the simpler version unless the removed abstraction has a demonstrated benefit.
Representation x-ray

Build an explanation artifact for cache placement: trace each component to a requirement, estimate, owner, failure domain, and observable signal.

CONSTRAINTA peer must be able to locate the first divergence without reading implementation code.

ORIGINAL IDEATreat the explanation itself as a product: make invisible transitions visible, replayable, and diffable.

Reveal frontier solution
  1. Create one row or timestamped event for each transition in: Evolve notification system from synchronous send to durable job queue.
  2. For every row record input, representation, owner, operation, output, and tool evidence from Architecture notebook · load tests · traces · Git history.
  3. Replay Define retries, idempotency, poison message, and per-user rate limit.; highlight only changed rows.
  4. Replay Kill worker after side effect before acknowledgment.; stop at the first divergent row and attach its recovery action.
Adversarial remix

Combine the boundary and failure into a new user-visible scenario for cache placement. turn a failure drill into a user-visible recovery story with explicit invariants.

CONSTRAINTDo not merely add more input. Invent a recovery interaction, alternate representation, or self-checking behavior.

ORIGINAL IDEAMake the system teach its own limits: the artifact should expose the invariant and offer a safe next action when it breaks.

Reveal frontier solution
  1. Combine these two pressures without changing them: Define retries, idempotency, poison message, and per-user rate limit. AND Kill worker after side effect before acknowledgment.
  2. Name the invariant that must survive and the user-visible evidence when it cannot: Recovery avoids silent loss and documents duplicate policy, backoff, queue depth, and invalidation.
  3. Implement this original direction: turn a failure drill into a user-visible recovery story with explicit invariants.
  4. Demonstrate baseline, combined failure, recovery, then baseline again; save the sequence as a regression fixture.

Capability frontier

Push cache placement until another layer becomes justified. Record one robust technique, one contextual trade-off, and one labeled hack or historical curiosity.

CORE · PRACTICAL · CONTEXTUAL · HACK · FRAGILE · HISTORICAL · GOLF

Boundary

No diagram removes physics, coordination, product ambiguity, or operational responsibility.

If this vanished tomorrow…

Collapse toward one process, one machine, files, SQLite, explicit protocols, and manual recovery until the true minimum appears.

Why next layer is earned

The next layer is another year of rebuilding, publishing, source reading, and measured production work.