How to Approach System Design Interviews

Many candidates find system design interviews challenging, primarily due to three key reasons:

1. Unstructured Format: open-ended design problems without a single correct answer, making it hard to know where to start or what to focus on.
2. Limited Experience: Candidates often lack hands-on experience in designing and building large-scale systems, which these interviews heavily emphasize.
3. Inadequate Preparation: Many candidates fail to dedicate sufficient time to prepare.

Similar to coding interviews, a lack of preparation can significantly impact performance in SDIs. This becomes even more pronounced when interviewing at leading tech companies like Google, Facebook, or Uber, where the bar is exceptionally high. At these companies, delivering an above-average performance is crucial for securing an offer, while a strong performance often leads to better offers, including higher positions and salaries, as it demonstrates your capability to manage complex systems.

1. Ask Questions

The first and most critical step in any system design problem is clarifying the requirements. Since design problems are inherently open-ended and lack a single "correct" solution, asking the right questions upfront helps define the scope of the task. Candidates who take the time to understand what the system should achieve are far more likely to deliver a focused and effective design. With only 35-40 minutes available, identifying the most critical components to design is crucial.

Let’s say we’re designing a ride-sharing service like Uber or Lyft. Before jumping into the architecture, consider asking these clarifying questions:

• Should the service support real-time ride booking, or are we including scheduled rides as well?
• Are we designing features for both riders and drivers, or focusing on one side of the platform?
• Does the system need to match riders with drivers based on proximity, ratings, or both?
• Should we account for surge pricing and dynamic fare calculation?
• Do we need to design the mapping and navigation functionality, or will we rely on a third-party API?
• Should the system include support for payment processing and receipts?
• Are we building this service to scale for multiple cities or just one region?

Answering these questions early helps set the stage for a clear, concise design process. It defines the system's functionality and highlights the components that need immediate focus. By tackling the requirements head-on, you’ll avoid unnecessary detours and ensure your design addresses the problem effectively.

2. Defining APIs

Defining the APIs expected from the system is a critical step in the design process. APIs serve as the contract between the system and its users or other services, specifying exactly how the system will function. This step also helps verify that all requirements are correctly understood and accounted for. By outlining the APIs, you ensure clarity and alignment between the design and the expected functionality.

Let’s consider a ride-sharing service as our example. Here are some API definitions that might be expected for this system:

1. Rider APIs:
   • Request Ride:
     • Endpoint: POST /rides/request
     • Parameters:
       • pickup_location (latitude, longitude)
       • dropoff_location (latitude, longitude)
       • rider_id
       • vehicle_preference (optional)
     • Response:
       • ride_id, estimated_time_of_arrival, fare_estimate.
   • Cancel Ride:
     • Endpoint: POST /rides/cancel
     • Parameters:
       • ride_id, rider_id.
     • Response:
       • status (success/failure), cancellation_fee (if applicable).
   • View Ride Status:
     • Endpoint: GET /rides/{ride_id}/status
     • Parameters:
       • ride_id.
     • Response:
       • current_status (e.g., searching, matched, on the way), driver_details, vehicle_details, ETA.
2. Driver APIs:
   • Accept Ride Request:
     • Endpoint: POST /rides/{ride_id}/accept
     • Parameters:
       • ride_id, driver_id.
     • Response:
       • status (success/failure), rider_pickup_location.
   • Mark Ride Complete:
     • Endpoint: POST /rides/{ride_id}/complete
     • Parameters:
       • ride_id, driver_id.
     • Response:
       • status (success/failure), fare_breakdown.
3. Admin APIs (Optional):
   • Fetch Ride Metrics:
     • Endpoint: GET /admin/rides/metrics
     • Parameters:
       • start_time, end_time, region (optional).
     • Response:
       • Total rides, cancellations, average fare, etc.

These examples illustrate how API definitions establish a clear contract for the expected functionality of the system. By defining APIs, you not only document what the system will deliver but also identify potential gaps or ambiguities in the requirements early in the design process.

3. Creating Estimations

Before diving into the system's architecture, it’s essential to estimate its expected scale. These rough calculations help define the system’s capacity requirements and inform key decisions around scaling, partitioning, load balancing, and caching.

Let’s take the example of designing a ride-sharing service. Here are some important estimations to consider:

1. Number of Requests Per Second (RPS):
   • How many ride requests do we expect per second during peak hours?
     • For example, if the service operates in 10 cities and each city handles an average of 50 ride requests per minute during peak times, we’ll need to handle approximately 500 RPS.
   • Include other types of requests, such as ride cancellations, status updates, and driver responses.
2. Storage Requirements:
   • Assume each ride request stores the following information:
     • ride_id: 16 bytes
     • rider and driver IDs: 32 bytes
     • pickup/dropoff locations: 64 bytes
     • ride status and metadata: 128 bytes
     • Total per ride: ~240 bytes
   • If the system handles 10 million rides per day, that’s about 2.4 GB/day. Over a year, this amounts to approximately 876 GB. Add additional storage for logs, analytics, and historical data.
3. Bandwidth Requirements:
   • Assume each request (ride request, status update, etc.) has a payload of ~1 KB, and responses have a similar size. For 500 RPS, that’s 500 KB/sec or ~40 MB/min. Scaling up to a day:
     • 500 RPS × 86,400 seconds/day × 2 KB/request = ~86 GB/day of bandwidth usage.
   • This will increase if features like real-time tracking or high-frequency updates are included.
4. Geographical Scaling:
   • If the service expands to 100 cities, the above metrics will need to scale proportionally. Additionally, consider the latency implications of serving users across multiple regions.
5. User Growth:
   • If the service expects a 10% monthly growth in active users, these numbers will compound over time, necessitating additional server capacity and storage.

These estimations provide a starting point for understanding the system’s scale and challenges. For instance, a bandwidth requirement of 86 GB/day indicates the need for optimized data transfer protocols, while a storage requirement nearing 1 TB/year may call for efficient archival and compression strategies. By establishing these numbers early, you can build a scalable and resilient system architecture.

4. What’s the Data Model?

Defining the data model early helps establish how data will flow through the system and provides a foundation for decisions around data storage, partitioning, and management. Identifying entities and their interactions ensures the system is designed with a clear understanding of its data requirements, including aspects like storage, encryption, and transportation.

Let’s take an example of a ride-sharing service. Here are some key entities and their attributes:

Entities and Attributes

1. User: Represents both riders and drivers.
   • Attributes:
     • UserID (unique identifier)
     • Name
     • Email
     • PhoneNumber
     • Role (rider or driver)
     • RegistrationDate
     • LastLogin
     • Rating (for drivers)
2. Ride: Represents a ride request or completed ride.
   • Attributes:
     • RideID (unique identifier)
     • RiderID
     • DriverID
     • PickupLocation (latitude, longitude)
     • DropoffLocation (latitude, longitude)
     • RequestTimestamp
     • CompletionTimestamp
     • Fare
     • Status (e.g., pending, in-progress, completed, canceled)
3. Vehicle: Represents a driver’s vehicle.
   • Attributes:
     • VehicleID
     • DriverID
     • Make
     • Model
     • Year
     • LicensePlate
4. Payment: Represents payment details for a ride.
   • Attributes:
     • PaymentID
     • RideID
     • UserID
     • Amount
     • PaymentMethod (credit card, PayPal, etc.)
     • Timestamp
     • Status (e.g., completed, refunded, pending)

Key Data Management Questions

1. Database System Choice:
   • A NoSQL solution like Cassandra may be ideal for storing ride logs due to its high write throughput and ability to scale horizontally.
   • A relational database like PostgreSQL could work well for user profiles and payment data, where relationships and transactions are critical.
2. Partitioning Strategy:
   • Rides could be partitioned by geographic region (e.g., city or state) to improve query performance.
   • User data could be partitioned by UserID to evenly distribute load.
3. Storage for Media (if applicable):
   • If the system includes photo uploads (e.g., for driver profile pictures or ride receipts), use a block storage solution like Amazon S3 or Google Cloud Storage.
4. Data Transportation:
   • For real-time updates like ride status, a message broker such as Apache Kafka or RabbitMQ can be used to handle high-frequency events.
5. Data Encryption and Privacy:
   • Use encryption (e.g., AES-256) for sensitive data like user information and payment details.
   • Apply transport-layer security (e.g., HTTPS/TLS) for secure communication between services.

Defining the data model clarifies the relationships between entities and informs the choice of database and storage technologies. For example, a combination of Cassandra for rides, PostgreSQL for payments, and S3 for media storage would provide a robust and scalable architecture for a ride-sharing service.

5. The System Architecture

A ride-sharing platform's architecture includes key components to handle functionalities like booking, matching, and payments:

1. Load Balancer: Distributes incoming requests (e.g., ride bookings) to ensure no server is overloaded.
2. Application Servers: Process client requests, validate ride bookings, and coordinate driver-rider matching.
3. Cache Servers: Store frequently accessed data (e.g., nearby drivers) to reduce latency and improve performance.
4. Database: Stores structured data like user profiles, ride details, and payment records.
5. Mapping Service: Integrates with APIs (e.g., Google Maps) for navigation, ETA, and route optimization.
6. Payment Gateway: Handles secure transactions for charging riders and paying drivers.
7. Real-Time Communication: Manages live updates like driver notifications and ride tracking.

6. Dive Deeper Into Key Components

After outlining the high-level architecture, focus on critical components of a ride-sharing platform, analyzing different approaches, their trade-offs, and how they fit system constraints. Let the interviewer guide the discussion to key areas of interest.

Examples:

• Data Partitioning:
  • Should we partition ride data by geographic regions or user IDs?
    • Pros of partitioning by region: Easier to optimize queries for local rides and minimize cross-region traffic.
    • Cons: Users traveling across regions may require complex joins.
    • Alternative: Partition by ride ID with metadata indices for region-based queries.
• Driver-Rider Matching:
  • How do we ensure fast, efficient matches?
    • Approach 1: Use location-based geospatial queries to find the nearest drivers.
      • Pros: Fast and accurate for local matches.
      • Cons: High computation cost for large datasets.
    • Approach 2: Pre-cache driver availability using a grid-based system.
      • Pros: Reduces query overhead during peak times.
      • Cons: Requires frequent cache updates.
• Real-Time Tracking:
  • How to optimize updates for rider-driver locations?
    • Approach 1: Polling: Clients periodically request location updates.
      • Pros: Simple to implement.
      • Cons: Increased latency and network overhead.
    • Approach 2: WebSocket-based push updates.
      • Pros: Real-time, low-latency updates.
      • Cons: More complex to implement and manage at scale.
• Caching Strategy:
  • Cache frequently queried data, such as nearby driver availability and recent ride history.
    • Trade-offs: Balances faster response times against potential cache invalidation challenges.

7. Identifying and Resolving Bottlenecks

Address potential bottlenecks in the ride-sharing system, emphasizing fault tolerance and scalability.

Examples of Bottlenecks and Solutions:

• Single Points of Failure:
  • Problem: Failure of the driver-matching service could disrupt ride requests.
  • Solution: Use redundant instances of the matching service with load balancing to ensure availability.
• Data Replication:
  • Problem: Loss of ride data due to database failure.
  • Solution: Implement multi-region replicas of the database to handle failovers.
  • Trade-offs: Data consistency might lag slightly due to eventual consistency.
• Load Balancing for High Traffic:
  • Problem: Traffic spikes during peak hours.
  • Solution: Employ dynamic load balancers to distribute traffic across multiple application servers and databases.
• Real-Time Communication Scalability:
  • Problem: Handling thousands of simultaneous location updates during rush hours.
  • Solution: Use partitioned WebSocket servers and a message broker like Kafka to distribute update events efficiently.
• Monitoring and Alerts:
  • Problem: Latent issues like increased ride matching latency or database query times.
  • Solution: Implement tools like Prometheus and Grafana to monitor system metrics and set up alerts for anomalies.

‍