Balancing performance and costs in system design projects: Can you find the perfect equilibrium?

Below are core principles that are pillars of system design 1. Trade-off- find the right balance between cost vs performance 2. Scalability -The design should be scalable so that adapting future need 3. Flexibility - adapt new change without requiring additional cost

In my experience, most of the time we can improve performance significantly by improving on how we have designed our systems. Coming to cost part, basically it is related to the computing power we are using for our systems to operate. In today's time we can get significant computing power at nominal cost that will keep our systems functioning swiftly with great performance. Spending on extremely high power computing resource would not do so much good except in some cases where extreme computations are required. Yes, in some cases there can be a way to improve reliability by using replicas, so in that case we can do is we shall not keep unnecessary replicas in more than 2 availability zones, rather distribute it over multiple regions.

We should consider systems as drivers for core business of an organization. So scalability in terms of performance & availability, maintainability and related costs should not become a cost burden to the same business that required the system in the first place.

Balancing performance and costs in system design requires key principles: Clear Requirements: Define performance goals and cost constraints upfront. Trade-Offs: Optimize performance-cost balance rather than chasing perfection. Modularity: Design with interchangeable components for easy upgrades. Lifecycle Focus: Consider total costs, including long-term maintenance. Iterative Design: Test early through prototypes and simulations to refine solutions. Optimization: to balance factors. Stakeholder Alignment: Collaborate to ensure cost-performance expectations are met. Risk Management: Include buffers for uncertainties. Continuous Improvement: Build adaptable systems for future upgrades.

Golden rules - Must haves, Good to haves, future to haves - as long as these are mapped with business value and related costs, we will be in the right path

stakeholder input - understand their performance and budget Use case - define the use case where performance can't be compromised Prioritization - prioritize needs based on performance and cost

Prioritize Needs: Identify critical (must-have) and secondary (nice-to-have) requirements to focus resources where they matter most.

In my experience, businesses often ignore OPEX when they are in the halo of a low CAPEX project. Understand current costs, technology roadmap and future costs before a solution is frozen. Do not commit to be a slave of future maintenance challenges in pursuit of a low cost implementation

Quantify Trade-offs: Understand how improving one metric impacts others, such as cost, energy consumption, or reliability, and make informed trade-offs.

1. Identify the risk that is related to performance and budget early in the design process 2. Develop contingency plan for performance issue and cost of the system

Early Risk Identification: Identify potential risks at the start of the project, including technical, financial, and operational risks, to minimize unforeseen costs. Assess Impact and Probability: Prioritize risks based on their likelihood and potential impact, focusing on the most significant threats to cost and performance. Develop Mitigation Plans: Create clear strategies to mitigate high-priority risks, ensuring that solutions are cost-effective and practical.