2nd/10_Wiki/Topics/Topic_Programming/Architecture/Distributed Systems Fallacies.md

---
id: wiki-2026-0508-distributed-systems-fallacies
title: Distributed Systems Fallacies
category: 10_Wiki/Topics
status: verified
canonical_id: self
aliases: [Fallacies of Distributed Computing, 8 Fallacies, Deutsch Fallacies]
duplicate_of: none
source_trust_level: A
confidence_score: 0.95
verification_status: applied
tags: [distributed-systems, architecture, networking, reliability]
raw_sources: []
last_reinforced: 2026-05-10
github_commit: pending
tech_stack:
  language: polyglot
  framework: distributed-systems
---

# Distributed Systems Fallacies

## 매 한 줄
> **"매 network 의 invisible 한 assumption 의 매 production failure 의 source"**. 1994년 Peter Deutsch (Sun) 가 매 7 fallacies 의 articulate, 1997년 James Gosling 가 8th 의 add. 매 2026 cloud-native 시대 에도 매 microservices / serverless / edge compute 의 매 매 valid.

## 매 핵심

### 매 8 Fallacies
1. **Network 의 reliable**: 매 packet drop / partition / DNS failure 의 inevitable.
2. **Latency 의 zero**: 매 LAN ~0.5ms, 매 cross-region ~150ms, 매 satellite ~600ms.
3. **Bandwidth 의 infinite**: 매 video / ML model weights / log shipping 의 saturate.
4. **Network 의 secure**: 매 default 의 insecure — 매 zero-trust assume.
5. **Topology 의 안 변함**: 매 autoscaling / k8s pod reschedule / failover 의 매 second.
6. **Administrator 의 single**: 매 multi-cloud / multi-region 의 매 다른 policy.
7. **Transport cost 의 zero**: 매 serialization / TLS handshake / egress fee 의 real.
8. **Network 의 homogeneous**: 매 IPv4/IPv6, 매 protocol versions, 매 MTU mismatch.

### 매 왜 fallacy 인가
- 매 dev 의 localhost / monolith mental model 의 distributed 에 적용 시 fail.
- 매 "happy path" coding 의 매 timeout / retry / circuit breaker 의 lack.
- 매 50ms RTT 의 매 100 calls 의 5 second user-facing latency.

### 매 응용
1. Microservices design — 매 call graph 의 latency budget 산정.
2. Cross-region replication — 매 split-brain / eventual consistency 의 plan.
3. Edge computing — 매 intermittent connectivity 의 first-class.

## 💻 패턴

### Pattern 1: Timeout + Retry with Exponential Backoff
```typescript
async function callWithRetry<T>(
  fn: () => Promise<T>,
  opts = { maxRetries: 3, baseMs: 100, timeoutMs: 2000 }
): Promise<T> {
  for (let attempt = 0; attempt <= opts.maxRetries; attempt++) {
    try {
      return await Promise.race([
        fn(),
        new Promise<never>((_, reject) =>
          setTimeout(() => reject(new Error("timeout")), opts.timeoutMs)
        ),
      ]);
    } catch (err) {
      if (attempt === opts.maxRetries) throw err;
      const jitter = Math.random() * opts.baseMs;
      await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, opts.baseMs * 2 ** attempt + jitter));
    }
  }
  throw new Error("unreachable");
}
```

### Pattern 2: Circuit Breaker (Resilience4j-style)
```typescript
class CircuitBreaker {
  private failures = 0;
  private state: "closed" | "open" | "half-open" = "closed";
  private openedAt = 0;
  constructor(private threshold = 5, private cooldownMs = 30_000) {}

  async exec<T>(fn: () => Promise<T>): Promise<T> {
    if (this.state === "open" && Date.now() - this.openedAt < this.cooldownMs)
      throw new Error("circuit open");
    if (this.state === "open") this.state = "half-open";
    try {
      const r = await fn();
      this.failures = 0; this.state = "closed";
      return r;
    } catch (e) {
      if (++this.failures >= this.threshold) {
        this.state = "open"; this.openedAt = Date.now();
      }
      throw e;
    }
  }
}
```

### Pattern 3: Bulkhead (concurrency limiter)
```typescript
import pLimit from "p-limit";
const dbLimit = pLimit(20);   // 매 DB pool 의 isolate
const apiLimit = pLimit(50);  // 매 external API 의 separate

async function getUser(id: string) {
  return dbLimit(() => db.users.findOne({ id }));
}
```

### Pattern 4: Idempotency Key
```typescript
async function chargeCard(req: ChargeReq, idemKey: string) {
  const cached = await redis.get(`idem:${idemKey}`);
  if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached);
  const result = await stripe.charges.create(req);
  await redis.setex(`idem:${idemKey}`, 86400, JSON.stringify(result));
  return result;
}
```

### Pattern 5: Latency Budget
```typescript
// 매 user-facing 200ms 의 budget
// API gateway:    20ms
// auth check:     10ms (cached)
// service call:   50ms (timeout 100ms)
// DB query:       30ms (timeout 80ms)
// serialization:  10ms
// buffer:         80ms
// 매 each hop 의 explicit budget — over 시 fail fast.
```

### Pattern 6: Chaos Testing (Toxiproxy)
```bash
# 매 latency injection
toxiproxy-cli toxic add api -t latency -a latency=500 -a jitter=100
# 매 packet loss
toxiproxy-cli toxic add db -t timeout -a timeout=2000
```

### Pattern 7: Health check with deep probe
```typescript
app.get("/health/deep", async (_, res) => {
  const checks = await Promise.allSettled([
    db.raw("SELECT 1").then(() => ({ db: "ok" })),
    redis.ping().then(() => ({ redis: "ok" })),
    fetch(upstream + "/health", { signal: AbortSignal.timeout(500) }),
  ]);
  const failed = checks.filter(c => c.status === "rejected");
  res.status(failed.length ? 503 : 200).json({ checks });
});
```

## 매 결정 기준
| 상황 | Approach |
|---|---|
| LAN microservice call | timeout 1-2s, retry 2x |
| Cross-region call | timeout 5-10s, circuit breaker |
| 3rd-party API | bulkhead + circuit breaker + idempotency |
| Streaming / WebSocket | heartbeat + auto-reconnect |
| Critical write | idempotency key 의 mandatory |

**기본값**: 매 every remote call 의 timeout + retry + circuit breaker 의 wrap.

## 🔗 Graph
- 부모: [[Distributed Systems]] · [[Software Architecture]]
- 변형: [[CAP Theorem & PACELC]] · [[PACELC]]
- 응용: [[Microservices Architecture]] · [[Service Mesh]]
- Adjacent: [[Resilience Patterns]] · [[Chaos Engineering]]

## 🤖 LLM 활용
**언제**: 매 distributed system design review, 매 incident postmortem, 매 SLO 산정.
**언제 X**: 매 single-process monolith, 매 batch job 의 isolated.

## ❌ 안티패턴
- **Infinite retry**: 매 retry storm — 매 backoff + max attempts 의 mandatory.
- **Timeout 의 unset**: 매 default infinite — 매 thread pool exhaustion.
- **Synchronous fan-out**: 매 N services 의 sequential await — 매 N×latency.
- **Trust LAN security**: 매 zero-trust / mTLS 의 default.
- **Ignore tail latency**: 매 p50 의 보고 의 — 매 p99 / p99.9 의 user experience.

## 🧪 검증 / 중복
- Verified (Deutsch 1994 / Gosling 1997 original list, AWS Builders' Library, Google SRE book).
- 신뢰도 A.

## 🕓 Changelog
| 날짜 | 변경 |
|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 | Phase 1 |
| 2026-05-10 | Manual cleanup — 8 fallacies + resilience patterns |