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 V3 (March 2024)
  4. Debug This Architecture

See how DeepSeek V3 (March 2024) compares on this challenge:

  • DeepSeek V3 (March 2024) vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • DeepSeek V3 (March 2024) vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
  • DeepSeek V3 (March 2024) 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 V3 (March 2024)

Debug This Architecture

Deepseek V3 03 24's response to the 'Debug This Architecture' challenge.

DeepSeek V3 (March 2024)
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 V3 (March 2024)
Response

deepseek-v3-03-24 logo
DeepSeek V3 (March 2024)Debug This Architecture
deepseek-v3-03-24 logo
DeepSeek V3 (March 2024)

Here’s a comprehensive analysis of potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in your architecture, along with proposed solutions and trade-offs:


1. WebSocket Connection Fragmentation

Problem: Clients connected to different API servers won’t receive real-time updates from each other due to isolated WebSocket connections per server. Polling PostgreSQL every 2 seconds introduces latency (up to 2s sync delay).
Solution:

  • Use a Pub/Sub system (e.g., Redis Pub/Sub or Kafka) to broadcast changes across all servers.
    • Trade-off: Adds complexity but ensures near-instant cross-server sync (~ms latency).
  • Sticky sessions (via load balancer) to group users editing the same document on the same server.
    • Trade-off: Reduces fragmentation but hurts load balancing fairness.

2. Last-Write-Wins (LWW) with Client Clocks

Problem: Client clocks are unreliable (can drift or be maliciously set), leading to data loss if a stale edit has a later timestamp.
Solution:

  • Server-assigned timestamps (monotonic logic clocks or hybrid logical clocks).
    • Trade-off: Adds server dependency for ordering but prevents conflicts.
  • Operational Transformation (OT) or CRDTs for conflict-free merging.
    • Trade-off: Complex implementation but preserves all edits.

3. PostgreSQL Polling Bottleneck

Problem: Polling every 2s scales poorly (N servers × M documents → high DB load).
Solution:

  • PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY for change events.
    • Trade-off: Lower latency but requires DB connections to stay open.
  • Debounce polling (e.g., only poll documents with active edits).
    • Trade-off: Reduces load but may miss rapid sequential edits.

4. Full HTML Snapshots Every 30s

Problem: Storage bloat (especially for large documents) and expensive snapshotting under high load.
Solution:

  • Delta-based storage (store only changes + periodic snapshots).
    • Trade-off: More complex recovery but saves space.
  • Compress snapshots (e.g., gzipped HTML).
    • Trade-off: CPU overhead for compression.

5. JWT in localStorage XSS Risk

Problem: Storing JWTs in localStorage makes them vulnerable to XSS attacks.
Solution:

  • Use httpOnly cookies for JWTs.
    • Trade-off: Harder to implement with WebSockets (requires CSRF protection).
  • Short-lived JWTs (5–10 min) + refresh tokens.
    • Trade-off: More auth requests but reduces exposure.

6. API Response Caching (5 min)

Problem: Stale document data if cached API responses don’t reflect real-time edits.
Solution:

  • Cache busting per document (invalidate cache on edit).
    • Trade-off: Higher CDN load but ensures freshness.
  • Edge-side includes (ESI) for dynamic parts.
    • Trade-off: Complex CDN configuration.

7. Scaling PostgreSQL Writes

Problem: High write load during peak editing (all changes hit the primary DB).
Solution:

  • Shard documents by organization ID (as planned) + use connection pooling.
    • Trade-off: Sharding complicates queries.
  • Write-ahead logging (WAL) + async replicas for eventual consistency.
    • Trade-off: Risk of stale reads.

8. WebSocket Server Overload

Problem: A single server handling too many WebSocket connections (memory/CPU limits).
Solution:

  • Dedicated WebSocket servers (separate from API servers).
    • Trade-off: Higher infrastructure cost.
  • Limit connections per server (e.g., 10k/server).
    • Trade-off: More servers needed.

9. No Graceful Degradation

Problem: If WebSockets fail, the UI may freeze (no fallback).
Solution:

  • Long-polling fallback when WebSockets disconnect.
    • Trade-off: Higher latency but resilient.

10. Document Partitioning by Org ID

Problem: Hot partitions if some orgs are much more active.
Solution:

  • Dynamic partitioning (e.g., split large orgs into sub-partitions).
    • Trade-off: Requires runtime rebalancing.

11. Redis Cache Failover

Problem: Session cache loss if Redis fails.
Solution:

  • Redis Cluster (with replicas) + local cache fallback.
    • Trade-off: Higher Redis costs.

Summary of Key Fixes:

  1. Replace polling with Redis Pub/Sub or LISTEN/NOTIFY.
  2. Use server timestamps or CRDTs instead of client clocks.
  3. Delta storage + compression for snapshots.
  4. Shard PostgreSQL + optimize writes.
  5. Secure JWTs with httpOnly cookies or short expiry.

Each solution balances performance, complexity, and reliability. The highest-priority fixes are WebSocket fragmentation (Pub/Sub) and LWW conflicts (server timestamps).

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 V3 (March 2024)

Capabilities

ConversationReasoningWeb DesignCode GenerationAnalysis

Categories

TextCodeMultimodal

Specifications

Provider
Deepseek
Released
2024-03-24
Size
XLARGE
Parameters
Not disclosed
Context
128,000 tokens

Keep exploring

SAME PROMPT

Claude Sonnet 4.6's version

Same prompt, different result

COMPARE

DeepSeek V3 (March 2024) 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