Skip to content
Rival
Models
CompareBest ForArena
Sign Up
Sign Up

Compare AI vibes, not scores. Side-by-side outputs across the world's best models.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • AI Creators
  • AI Tools
  • The Graveyard

Developers

  • Developer Hub
  • MCP Server
  • .llmignore
  • Badges
  • RIVAL Datasets

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Sponsor
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
© 2026 Rival
Rival
Models
CompareBest ForArena
Sign Up
Sign Up

Compare AI vibes, not scores. Side-by-side outputs across the world's best models.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • AI Creators
  • AI Tools
  • The Graveyard

Developers

  • Developer Hub
  • MCP Server
  • .llmignore
  • Badges
  • RIVAL Datasets

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Sponsor
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
© 2026 Rival
  1. Home
  2. Models
  3. DeepSeek R1
  4. Debug This Architecture

See how DeepSeek R1 compares on this challenge:

  • DeepSeek R1 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • DeepSeek R1 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
  • DeepSeek R1 vs Z.ai: GLM 5

4 models have responded to the "Debug This Architecture" challenge. Compare their approaches side-by-side on RIVAL. This response is part of RIVAL's open dataset of 5,600+ AI model responses.

Rival
Models
CompareBest ForArena
Sign Up
Sign Up
Back to DeepSeek R1

Debug This Architecture

Deepseek R1's response to the 'Debug This Architecture' challenge.

DeepSeek R1
February 3, 2026
Text

?
Prompt

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with WebSocket connections - Backend: Node.js API servers behind a load balancer (round-robin) - Database: PostgreSQL for document storage, Redis for session cache - Real-time: Each API server maintains its own WebSocket connections to clients - Sync Strategy: Last-write-wins with timestamps from client clocks - Storage: Documents saved as full HTML snapshots every 30 seconds - Auth: JWT tokens with 24-hour expiry, stored in localStorage - CDN: CloudFront for static assets, also caches API responses for 5 minutes **Data Flow:** 1. User types → change event sent via WebSocket to their connected server 2. Server writes change to PostgreSQL 3. Server broadcasts change to all WebSocket clients connected to THAT server 4. Other servers poll PostgreSQL every 2 seconds for changes 5. Conflict resolution: if two users edit the same paragraph, last timestamp wins **Scaling Plan:** - Horizontal scaling by adding more API servers - Database read replicas for read-heavy operations - Document partitioning by organization ID Identify all potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in this architecture. For each issue found, propose a specific solution with trade-offs.

DeepSeek R1
Response

deepseek-r1 logo
DeepSeek R1Debug This Architecture
deepseek-r1 logo
DeepSeek R1

Identified Issues and Proposed Solutions:

  1. Cross-Server Sync Delay (Polling Bottleneck)

    • Issue: 2-second polling introduces latency for cross-server updates, breaking real-time sync.
    • Solution: Replace polling with Redis Pub/Sub. Servers publish changes to a channel on write and subscribe to broadcast updates globally.
    • Trade-off: Adds Redis dependency and pub/sub complexity. Requires message deduplication.
  2. Unreliable Conflict Resolution (Client Timestamps)

    • Issue: Client clocks may skew, causing incorrect "last-write-wins."
    • Solution: Use server-generated timestamps (synchronized via NTP) or vector clocks for causal ordering.
    • Trade-off: Server clocks require synchronization; vector clocks increase metadata overhead.
  3. Data Loss Risk with Snapshots

    • Issue: 30-second snapshots risk losing intermediate changes during crashes.
    • Solution: Use Operational Transform (OT) or CRDTs to track incremental changes, with periodic snapshots.
    • Trade-off: Increased complexity in handling merge operations and history tracking.
  4. JWT Security in localStorage

    • Issue: localStorage is vulnerable to XSS attacks;
    • Solution: Store JWTs in httpOnly cookies with CSRF tokens or use short-lived tokens + refresh tokens.
    • Trade-off: Cookies require CSRF mitigation; refresh tokens need secure server-side storage.
  5. Stale CDN Caching

    • Issue: 5-minute API caching serves outdated document versions.
    • Solution: Invalidate CDN cache on document update via webhooks or versioned URLs (e.g., /api/doc?id=1&v=123).
    • Trade-off: Higher CDN costs and complexity in cache invalidation logic.
  6. Stateless Load Balancing with WebSockets

    • Issue: Round-robin disrupts WebSocket statefulness, fragmenting user sessions.
    • Solution: Implement sticky sessions using the Sec-WebSocket-Key header or IP hashing.
    • Trade-off: Reduced load-balancing efficiency; potential uneven traffic distribution.
  7. Read Replica Lag

    • Issue: Replicas may serve stale data during heavy write loads.
    • Solution: Use a write-through Redis cache for frequently accessed documents, or route critical reads to the primary DB.
    • Trade-off: Cache invalidation complexity; primary DB read load increases.
  8. Hotspots in Document Partitioning

    • Issue: Sharding by organization ID may create hotspots for large orgs.
    • Solution: Composite shard keys (e.g., org_id + doc_id_hash) or dynamic resharding.
    • Trade-off: Shard management complexity; potential data downtime during resharding.
  9. Race Conditions in Snapshot Saves

    • Issue: Concurrent snapshot writes may overwrite changes.
    • Solution: Use optimistic concurrency control (e.g., UPDATE ... WHERE version = X).
    • Trade-off: Increased DB contention and retry logic in application code.
  10. High Database Load from Polling

    • Issue: Frequent polling by multiple servers strains PostgreSQL.
    • Solution: Replace polling with a PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY for real-time change events.
    • Trade-off: Limited scalability in high write volumes; requires connection pooling.

Summary of Trade-offs:

  • Complexity vs. Performance: Introducing Redis Pub/Sub or CRDTs improves real-time sync but adds operational overhead.
  • Security vs. Usability: httpOnly cookies enhance security but complicate token management.
  • Consistency vs. Scalability: Sticky sessions ensure WebSocket consistency but reduce load-balancing flexibility.

Final Recommendations:

  • Prioritize Redis Pub/Sub for real-time sync and server timestamps for conflict resolution.
  • Migrate to incremental changes (CRDTs) and short-lived JWTs with refresh tokens.
  • Implement sticky sessions and CDN cache invalidation to address fragmentation and staleness.
Debug This Architecture

Turn this model response into notes, narration, or a short video

Auto NotesTranscriptNarrateVideo Cut

Partner link

This output is part of our open dataset — 5K+ AI responses across 200 models

About DeepSeek R1

Capabilities

ConversationReasoningCode GenerationAnalysis

Categories

TextCodeMultimodal

Specifications

Provider
Deepseek
Released
2025-02-01
Size
LARGE
Parameters
671B total (37B active MoE)
Context
128,000 tokens

Keep exploring

SAME PROMPT

Claude Sonnet 4.6's version

Same prompt, different result

COMPARE

DeepSeek R1 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview

Both outputs, side by side

Compare AI vibes, not scores. Side-by-side outputs across the world's best models.

@rival_tips

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges

Discover

  • AI Creators
  • AI Tools
  • The Graveyard

Developers

  • Developer Hub
  • MCP Server
  • .llmignore
  • Badges
  • RIVAL Datasets

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Sponsor
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
© 2026 Rival