Distributed Caching: A System Design Interview Guide

1. Introduction to Distributed Caching

Caching is a technique that stores frequently accessed data in a faster, temporary
storage layer to reduce latency and improve performance. In a distributed system,
where applications are spread across multiple servers, distributed caching involves
sharing this cached data across multiple nodes. Instead of each application instance
having its own local cache, a distributed cache allows data to be accessed by any
application instance, providing a unified view of cached data.

Why Distributed Caching?

●​ Performance Improvement: Reduces the need to fetch data from slower primary
data stores (like databases or remote APIs), leading to faster response times.
●​ Scalability: Offloads load from backend databases, allowing them to handle
more writes and complex queries, thus improving overall system scalability.
●​ Reduced Database Load: Minimizes the number of direct database queries,
saving database resources (CPU, I/O, connections).
●​ High Availability: Can serve data even if the primary data store experiences
temporary outages (depending on the consistency model).

2. Benefits of Distributed Caching

●​ Enhanced Throughput: Systems can handle a higher volume of requests per
second.
●​ Lower Latency: Data retrieval times are significantly reduced.
●​ Improved User Experience: Faster loading times and more responsive
applications.
●​ Cost Efficiency: Reduces the need for expensive database scaling.
●​ Decoupling: Separates the caching layer from the application and database,
allowing independent scaling and management.

3. Challenges of Distributed Caching

While beneficial, distributed caching introduces several complexities:
●​ Cache Coherency/Consistency: Ensuring that cached data remains consistent
with the primary data source. This is the most significant challenge.
●​ Data Staleness: Cached data can become outdated if the source data changes
and the cache is not updated or invalidated promptly.
●​ Cache Invalidation: Deciding when and how to remove or update stale data from
the cache. This is often described as one of the hardest problems in computer
 science.
●​ Network Overhead: Accessing a distributed cache still involves network calls,
which can introduce latency compared to local caching.
●​ Complexity: Managing a distributed cache cluster (deployment, monitoring,
scaling, fault tolerance) adds operational complexity.
●​ Cost: Running and maintaining a distributed cache cluster incurs infrastructure
and operational costs.
●​ Cache Stampede/Thundering Herd: When a popular item expires, multiple
clients simultaneously try to fetch it from the backend database, overwhelming it.
●​ Cold Cache: At startup or after a cache flush, the cache is empty, leading to
initial high latency as data is loaded.

4. Caching Architectures/Topologies
●​ Client-Side Caching (Browser/Application Cache): Data is cached directly on
the client (e.g., browser's HTTP cache, application-specific in-memory cache).
○​ Pros: Fastest access, no network overhead for subsequent requests.
○​ Cons: Limited storage, data specific to one client, complex invalidation for
shared data.
●​ Server-Side Caching:
○​ Local Cache: Each application server maintains its own in-memory cache.
■​ Pros: Very fast access, no network overhead.
■​ Cons: Data duplication across servers, consistency issues between server
caches, limited by server memory.
○​ Distributed Cache (Shared Cache): A dedicated cluster of servers acts as
the caching layer, accessible by all application servers.
■​ Pros: Shared data, high availability, scalable, offloads database.
■​ Cons: Network overhead, consistency challenges, operational complexity.
●​ Content Delivery Network (CDN) Caching: Caches static and dynamic web
content geographically closer to users.
○​ Pros: Reduces latency for geographically dispersed users, offloads origin
server.
○​ Cons: Primarily for public content, invalidation can be tricky.

5. Cache Consistency Models and Write Strategies

Consistency models dictate how cached data is synchronized with the primary data
store.
●​ Read-Through:
○​ Mechanism: When the application requests data, it first checks the cache. If
 the data is not found (cache miss), the cache itself (or the caching library) is
responsible for fetching the data from the primary data store, storing it in the
cache, and then returning it to the application.
○​ Pros: Simplifies application logic, cache is always up-to-date on a miss.
○​ Cons: Initial read latency on cache miss, cache can become stale if primary
data changes externally.
●​ Write-Through:
○​ Mechanism: When the application writes data, it writes simultaneously to
both the cache and the primary data store. The write operation is considered
complete only after both writes succeed.
○​ Pros: Cache is always consistent with the primary data store for writes, simple
to implement.
○​ Cons: Increased write latency (waiting for two writes), potential for write
failures if either fails.
●​ Write-Back (Write-Behind):
○​ Mechanism: When the application writes data, it writes only to the cache. The
cache then asynchronously writes the data to the primary data store.
○​ Pros: Very low write latency for the application, high write throughput.
○​ Cons: Data loss risk if the cache node fails before data is persisted to the
primary store, more complex to implement (requires robust error handling and
persistence mechanisms).
●​ Write-Around:
○​ Mechanism: When the application writes data, it writes directly to the primary
data store, bypassing the cache. The data is only loaded into the cache on a
subsequent read (lazy loading).
○​ Pros: Good for data that is written once and rarely read, avoids polluting the
cache with infrequently accessed data.
○​ Cons: Cache misses on initial reads after a write, potential for higher read
latency for newly written data.
●​ Cache-Aside (Lazy Loading):
○​ Mechanism: The application is responsible for managing the cache. On a
read, the application checks the cache first. If a miss, it fetches from the
database, stores it in the cache, and returns it. On a write, the application
writes directly to the database and then invalidates (deletes) the
corresponding entry in the cache.
○​ Pros: Simple to implement, application has full control, avoids caching data
that is never read.
○​ Cons: Cache can become stale between write to database and cache
 invalidation, "thundering herd" problem on cache expiration/invalidation.

6. Cache Invalidation Strategies

Invalidation is crucial for maintaining consistency.
●​ Time-to-Live (TTL):
○​ Mechanism: Each cached entry is assigned a lifespan. After this time, the
entry is automatically evicted.
○​ Pros: Simple, effective for data with predictable staleness tolerance.
○​ Cons: Data can be stale for the duration of the TTL, not suitable for highly
dynamic data.
●​ Least Recently Used (LRU):
○​ Mechanism: When the cache is full and a new item needs to be added, the
item that has not been accessed for the longest time is evicted.
○​ Pros: Effective for data with high temporal locality.
○​ Cons: Does not consider frequency of use, a rarely used item might stay if
recently accessed.
●​ Least Frequently Used (LFU):
○​ Mechanism: Evicts the item that has been accessed the fewest times.
○​ Pros: Good for data with high frequency locality.
○​ Cons: Can keep old, frequently accessed items even if they are no longer
popular; requires tracking access counts.
●​ Most Recently Used (MRU): Evicts the item that was most recently accessed.
Less common.
●​ Random Replacement (RR): Evicts a random item when the cache is full. Simple
but less efficient.
●​ Publish/Subscribe (Pub/Sub) based Invalidation:
○​ Mechanism: When data in the primary store changes, a message is published
to a topic. Cache nodes subscribe to this topic and invalidate (or update) their
corresponding entries upon receiving a message.
○​ Pros: Real-time invalidation, strong consistency guarantees if implemented
correctly.
○​ Cons: Adds complexity (message queue, event handling), potential for race
conditions if not carefully managed.
●​ Version Stamping/Optimistic Locking:
○​ Mechanism: Each data item has a version number. When data is updated, the
version number increments. Clients can include the version number in their
requests, and the cache can check if its version matches the latest.
○​ Pros: Helps detect stale data, useful for concurrent updates.
 ○​ Cons: Requires version management in both cache and primary store.

7. Common Caching Patterns (Revisited with Focus)

●​ Cache-Aside (Lazy Loading):
○​ Read: Application checks cache. If miss, fetches from DB, puts in cache,
returns.
○​ Write: Application writes to DB, then invalidates cache entry.
○​ Use Cases: Most common, simple to implement, good for read-heavy
workloads where data changes infrequently.
●​ Read-Through:
○​ Read: Application asks cache for data. If miss, cache fetches from DB,
populates itself, and returns data.
○​ Write: Application writes to DB. Cache is updated by an external mechanism
or invalidated.
○​ Use Cases: When cache needs to manage its own loading, often used with
caching libraries/systems that support this.
●​ Write-Through:
○​ Write: Application writes to cache, which synchronously writes to DB.
○​ Read: Application reads from cache.
○​ Use Cases: Data integrity is critical, ensuring cache and DB are always in sync
for writes.
●​ Write-Back:
○​ Write: Application writes to cache. Cache asynchronously writes to DB.
○​ Read: Application reads from cache.
○​ Use Cases: High write throughput scenarios where immediate persistence is
not required, e.g., logging, counters.
●​ CDN Caching:
○​ Mechanism: Edge servers cache static and sometimes dynamic content.
○​ Use Cases: Delivering web assets (images, CSS, JS), streaming media,
reducing latency for global users.

8. Key Considerations for System Design

When designing a system with distributed caching, consider:
●​ Data Characteristics:
○​ Size: How large are individual cache entries?
○​ Type: Is it simple key-value, or complex objects?
○​ Volatility: How frequently does the data change?
○​ Access Patterns: Read-heavy, write-heavy, read-write mix?
●​ Consistency Requirements:
○​ Strict Consistency: Is it absolutely critical that cached data is always
identical to the source? (Rarely achievable or necessary for
performance-critical caches).
○​ Eventual Consistency: Is some degree of staleness acceptable? (Common
for performance optimization).
●​ Eviction Policies: Which policy best suits your data access patterns (LRU, LFU,
TTL)?
●​ Scalability & High Availability:
○​ Sharding/Partitioning: How will data be distributed across cache nodes?
(e.g., consistent hashing).
○​ Replication: How will data be replicated for fault tolerance? (e.g.,
master-replica, peer-to-peer).
○​ Failover: How does the system handle cache node failures?
●​ Network Latency: Proximity of cache nodes to application servers.
●​ Monitoring & Management: Tools for monitoring cache hit/miss ratio, memory
usage, latency, and operational health.
●​ Cost: Hardware, software licenses, operational overhead.
●​ Serialization: How will objects be converted to bytes for storage in the cache
(e.g., JSON, Protocol Buffers, Java Serialization)?

9. Popular Distributed Caching Systems

●​ Redis:
○​ Type: In-memory data structure store, used as a database, cache, and
message broker.
○​ Features: Supports various data structures (strings, hashes, lists, sets, sorted
sets), persistence options, replication, clustering, Pub/Sub.
○​ Pros: Extremely fast, versatile, rich feature set, active community.
○​ Cons: Primarily in-memory (can be expensive for very large datasets),
single-threaded (though modern versions handle multiple client connections
efficiently).
●​ Memcached:
○​ Type: Simple, high-performance, distributed memory object caching system.
○​ Features: Key-value store, very fast, multi-threaded.
○​ Pros: Simplicity, speed, excellent for pure caching (key-value).
○​ Cons: No persistence, no replication (requires client-side logic for high
availability), limited data structures.
●​ Apache Ignite:
○​ Type: Distributed in-memory data grid, database, and processing platform.
 ○​ Features: ACID transactions, SQL support, compute grid, service grid,
machine learning.
○​ Pros: Feature-rich, supports complex use cases beyond simple caching,
strong consistency options.
○​ Cons: More complex to set up and manage than Redis/Memcached.
●​ Hazelcast:
○​ Type: In-memory data grid.
○​ Features: Distributed collections (Map, List, Set, Queue), Pub/Sub, distributed
locking, SQL queries.
○​ Pros: Easy to embed, highly scalable, good for transactional data caching.
○​ Cons: Can be resource-intensive.

10. Interview Questions/Discussion Points

●​ "When would you use a distributed cache versus a local cache?"
○​ Distributed: When data needs to be shared across multiple application
instances, high availability is required, or database load reduction is a primary
goal.
○​ Local: When data is specific to an instance, latency is paramount, and
consistency across instances is not a major concern.
●​ "How do you handle the 'cache stampede' or 'thundering herd' problem?"
○​ Locking: Use a distributed lock (e.g., Redis SETNX) to ensure only one
thread/process fetches the data from the backend while others wait.
○​ Pre-fetching/Proactive Caching: Load data into the cache before it expires
or becomes popular.
○​ Stale Data Serving: Serve slightly stale data while a fresh copy is being
fetched in the background.
○​ Jitter/Randomized Expiry: Add a small random offset to TTLs to prevent all
entries from expiring simultaneously.
●​ "Describe how you would design a cache invalidation strategy for a highly
dynamic e-commerce product catalog."
○​ Combination of TTL and Pub/Sub:
■​ Use a short TTL (e.g., 5-15 minutes) for general product data to handle
eventual consistency.
■​ Implement a Pub/Sub mechanism: When a product's price or availability
changes in the database, publish an event. Cache nodes subscribe to this
event and immediately invalidate (or update) the specific product entry.
■​ Consider versioning for critical data.
●​ "Discuss the trade-offs between Write-Through and Write-Back caching."
○​ Write-Through: Higher write latency, but strong consistency and no data loss
 on cache failure. Simpler.
○​ Write-Back: Lower write latency, higher write throughput, but risk of data loss
on cache failure. More complex to ensure durability.
●​ "How would you monitor the health and effectiveness of your distributed
cache?"
○​ Key Metrics: Cache hit ratio, cache miss ratio, memory usage, CPU usage,
network I/O, number of connections, eviction rates, latency (read/write).
○​ Tools: Prometheus/Grafana, Datadog, built-in monitoring of caching systems
(Redis INFO, Memcached stats).
○​ Alerting: Set up alerts for low hit ratio, high memory usage, high latency, or
cache node failures.
●​ "You have a service that reads user profiles. How would you design a
caching layer for this service, considering it's a read-heavy workload but
profiles can be updated?"
○​ Pattern: Cache-Aside (Lazy Loading) is a good fit.
○​ Cache System: Redis (for its speed, persistence options, and data
structures).
○​ Read Flow:
1.​ Application receives request for user profile.
2.​ Checks Redis for user:<id>.
3.​ If hit, return cached profile.
4.​ If miss, fetch from primary DB (e.g., PostgreSQL).
5.​ Store profile in Redis with a reasonable TTL (e.g., 1 hour).
6.​ Return profile.
○​ Write Flow (User Profile Update):
1.​ Application receives update request.
2.​ Updates user profile in primary DB.
3.​ Invalidates (deletes) user:<id> from Redis.
○​ Invalidation: TTL combined with explicit invalidation on writes. For critical
updates, consider a Pub/Sub mechanism if immediate consistency is required
across all instances.
○​ Scalability: Shard Redis by user ID. Replicate Redis nodes for high availability.

This document provides a solid foundation for discussing distributed caching in a

system design interview. Remember to tailor your answers to the specific context of
the question and be ready to discuss trade-offs and alternative solutions.