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 V3.2 Exp
  4. Debug This Architecture

See how DeepSeek V3.2 Exp compares on this challenge:

  • DeepSeek V3.2 Exp vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
  • DeepSeek V3.2 Exp vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
  • DeepSeek V3.2 Exp 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 V3.2 Exp

Debug This Architecture

Deepseek V3 2 Exp's response to the 'Debug This Architecture' challenge.

DeepSeek V3.2 Exp
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 V3.2 Exp
Response

deepseek-v3.2-exp logo
DeepSeek V3.2 ExpDebug This Architecture
deepseek-v3.2-exp logo
DeepSeek V3.2 Exp

Critical Issues in Proposed Architecture

1. WebSocket Broadcast Isolation

Issue: Each server only broadcasts to its own WebSocket clients → users connected to different servers won't see real-time updates from each other.

  • Severity: Critical - breaks real-time collaboration
  • Race Condition: User A (server 1) and User B (server 2) editing same document won't see each other's changes in real-time

Solution: Use Redis Pub/Sub for cross-server WebSocket broadcasting

// When server receives change:
redis.publish(`doc:${docId}`, changeEvent);
// All servers subscribe to channel:
redis.subscribe(`doc:${docId}`, (change) => broadcastToLocalClients(change));

Trade-off: Adds network hop latency (~1-2ms), requires Redis cluster for high availability

2. Client Clock Synchronization

Issue: Last-write-wins using client timestamps is fundamentally broken

  • Severity: Critical - data loss guaranteed
  • Race Condition: User with wrong system clock (even seconds off) can overwrite newer changes

Solution: Use server-generated monotonic sequence numbers

-- PostgreSQL sequence per document:
CREATE SEQUENCE doc_123_version_seq;
-- Each change: nextval('doc_123_version_seq')

Trade-off: Requires database round-trip before broadcasting (~5-10ms added latency)

3. Database Polling Bottleneck

Issue: 2-second polling interval across all servers will overwhelm database at scale

  • Severity: High - doesn't scale beyond ~50 servers
  • Bottleneck: Each server polling all documents → O(n²) query load

Solution: Replace polling with PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY

-- Server listens for document changes:
LISTEN doc_changes_123;
-- On change:
NOTIFY doc_changes_123, '{"version": 456}';

Trade-off: PostgreSQL connection limit (~500-1000 connections), requires connection pooling strategy

4. Full HTML Snapshot Storage

Issue: Saving entire document every 30 seconds wastes storage/bandwidth

  • Severity: Medium - scales poorly with large documents
  • Example: 10MB document × 100 edits/min = 20GB/hour of redundant data

Solution: Operational Transform (OT) or Conflict-free Replicated Data Types (CRDTs)

  • Store only diffs/operations
  • Reconstruct snapshots periodically (e.g., every 100 ops)
// Store operations instead of full HTML:
{
  "op": "insert",
  "pos": 42,
  "text": "new text",
  "version": 123
}

Trade-off: Complex implementation, requires operation history cleanup strategy

5. JWT in localStorage Security Risk

Issue: localStorage vulnerable to XSS attacks

  • Severity: High - token theft leads to account compromise
  • Risk: Any XSS vulnerability exposes all user tokens

Solution: HttpOnly cookies + CSRF tokens

  • Set httpOnly; secure; sameSite=strict flags
  • Include CSRF token in API requests
// Frontend includes CSRF token in headers
axios.defaults.headers.common['X-CSRF-Token'] = getCSRFToken();

Trade-off: More complex auth flow, requires sticky sessions or JWT in cookies

6. API Response Caching

Issue: Caching API responses for 5 minutes breaks real-time collaboration

  • Severity: High - users see stale document versions
  • Example: CDN serves 5-minute-old document while real-time changes occur

Solution:

  1. No caching for document endpoints: Cache-Control: no-store
  2. Use ETags for conditional requests: If-None-Match: "version123"
  3. Cache only static metadata: User profiles, organization info Trade-off: Higher origin load, but necessary for consistency

7. WebSocket Connection State

Issue: Server crash loses all WebSocket connections

  • Severity: Medium - poor user experience during deployments/outages
  • Failure Mode: Load balancer round-robin → users randomly disconnected

Solution:

  1. Sticky sessions: Configure load balancer for WebSocket affinity
  2. Connection draining: Graceful shutdown signaling
  3. Client reconnection logic with exponential backoff
// Client-side reconnection:
function reconnect() {
  const delay = Math.min(1000 * 2 ** attempts, 30000);
  setTimeout(connectWebSocket, delay);
}

Trade-off: Sticky sessions reduce load distribution effectiveness

8. Database Partitioning Strategy

Issue: Partitioning only by organization ID leads to hotspots

  • Severity: Medium - large organizations overwhelm single partitions
  • Example: Google (organization) vs small startup have same partitioning

Solution: Composite partitioning key

-- Partition by (organization_id, document_id_hash)
PARTITION BY HASH((organization_id::text || document_id::text)::uuid)

Trade-off: More complex queries for cross-organization operations (admin views)

9. Conflict Resolution Blind Spots

Issue: Last-write-wins loses intermediate changes

  • Severity: High - collaborative editing needs merge semantics
  • Example: User A types "Hello", User B types "World" at same position → one loses

Solution: Implement Operational Transform (OT) with central server sequencing

// Server as single sequencer:
class OTServer {
  applyOperation(doc, operation) {
    const transformed = OT.transform(operation, this.pendingOps);
    this.history.push(transformed);
    return transformed;
  }
}

Trade-off: Significant implementation complexity, requires undo/redo handling

10. Scaling Bottlenecks

Issue: Single points of failure in each component

  • Severity: High - no redundancy described

Solution: Multi-AZ deployment with failover

Component      Redundancy Strategy
-------------  --------------------
PostgreSQL     Multi-AZ RDS with read replicas
Redis          Redis Cluster (6 nodes, 3 master/3 slave)
WebSocket      Redis Pub/Sub + auto-scaling group
Load Balancer  Multi-AZ ALB/NLB

Trade-off: 2-3x higher infrastructure cost

11. Missing Monitoring & Alerting

Issue: No visibility into system health

  • Severity: Medium - failures go undetected

Solution: Implement observability stack

  • Metrics: WebSocket connections per server, operation latency, conflict rate
  • Logging: Structured JSON logs with request IDs
  • Alerting: PagerDuty/OpsGenie for SLO violations
# SLO example:
availability: 99.95% over 30 days
latency: p95 < 200ms for document operations

Trade-off: Operational overhead, but essential for production

Recommended Architecture Changes

  1. Immediate Fixes (Week 1):

    • Replace client timestamps with server sequence numbers
    • Implement Redis Pub/Sub for cross-server broadcasting
    • Remove API response caching for document endpoints
  2. Short-term (Month 1):

    • Implement OT/CRDTs instead of last-write-wins
    • Move JWT to HttpOnly cookies
    • Add PostgreSQL LISTEN/NOTIFY to replace polling
  3. Long-term (Quarter 1):

    • Implement comprehensive observability
    • Multi-region deployment for geographic redundancy
    • Advanced conflict resolution with rich text awareness

This architecture can support ~10,000 concurrent editors with these changes, scaling to ~100,000 with additional Redis clustering and database optimization.

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 V3.2 Exp

Capabilities

ConversationReasoningCode GenerationAnalysis

Categories

TextCode

Specifications

Provider
Deepseek
Released
2025-09-29
Size
LARGE
Context
163,840 tokens

Keep exploring

SAME PROMPT

Claude Sonnet 4.6's version

Same prompt, different result

COMPARE

DeepSeek V3.2 Exp 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