<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>System on Yiwei Shi</title><link>/tags/system/</link><description>Recent content in System on Yiwei Shi</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 22:52:48 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="/tags/system/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Back-of-the-Envelope Numbers Every System Designer Should Know</title><link>/posts/20260505-basic-machine-numbers/</link><pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 22:52:48 -0400</pubDate><guid>/posts/20260505-basic-machine-numbers/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;When you&amp;rsquo;re sketching a system architecture on a whiteboard, you don&amp;rsquo;t need precise benchmarks — you need to know whether your design is within an order of magnitude of feasible. Is one Postgres node enough? Do you need Kafka, or will RabbitMQ do? Should you reach for Cassandra, or is your workload nowhere near needing it?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here are the numbers I keep in my head, calibrated against published benchmarks from Confluent, Instaclustr, Honeycomb, and others. Treat them as starting points for capacity planning, not SLAs.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>