Redis Streams and the Unified Log

Years ago an article came out of LinkedIn about the unified log, a useful architectural pattern for services in a distributed system share state with one another. In the log’s design, services emit state changes into an ordered data structure in which each new record gets a unique ID. Unlike a queue, a log is durable across any number of reads until it’s explicitly truncated.

Consumers track changes in the wider system by reading the log. Each one maintains the ID of the last record it successfully consumed and aims to read every record at least once – nothing should ever be missed. When a consumer is knocked offline, it restarts and looks up the last ID that it saw, and continues reading the log from there.

The log is unified because it acts as a master ledger of state changes in a wider system. All components that are making critical changes write to it, and all components that need to track distributed state are subscribed.

LinkedIn’s article is sober enough to point out that this design is nothing new: we’ve been using logs in various forms in computer science for decades. Journaling file systems use them to protect data against corruption. Databases use them in places like the write-ahead log (WAL) in Postgres as they stream changes to their read replicas.

The unified log: a producer emits to the stream and consumers read from it.

Even so, the unified log was a refreshingly novel idea when the article was written, and still is. File systems and databases use the structure because it’s effective, and it lends itself just as well to distributed architectures. Kafka is more prevalent in 2017, but most of us are still gluing components together with patches and duct tape.

Chatty services exchange high-frequency messages back and forth in a way that’s slow (they rely on synchrony), inefficient (single messages are passed around), and fragile (every individual message introduces some possibility of failure). In contrast, the log is asynchronous, its records are produced and consumed in batches, and its design builds in resilience at every turn.

Redis streams

This brings us to Redis. I was happy to hear recently that the project will soon 1 be shipping with a new data structure that’s a perfect foundation for a unified log: streams. Unlike a Redis list, records in a stream are assigned with addressable IDs and are indexed or sliced with those IDs instead than a relative offset (i.e. like 0 or len() - 1).This lends itself well to having multiple consumers reading out of a single stream and tracking their position within it by persisting the ID of the last record they read.

The new XADD command appends to one:

> XADD rocket-rides-log * id 123 distance 456.7

A record with id = 123 and distance = 456.7 is appended to the stream rocket-rides-log. Redis responds with a unique ID for the record that’s made up of a timestamp and a sequence number (.0) to disambiguate entries created within the same millisecond.

XRANGE is XADD’s counterpart. It reads a set of records from a stream:

> XRANGE rocket-rides-log - + COUNT 2
1) 1) 1506871964177.0
   2) 1) "id"
      2) "123"
      3) "distance"
      4) "456.7"
2) 1) 1506872463535.0
   2) 1) "id"
      2) "124"
      3) "distance"
      4) "89.0"

The tokens - and + are special in that they tell Redis to read from the first available record in the stream and up to the last available record in the stream respectively. Either one can be replaced with an ID like 1506871964177.0 to read from or up to a specific record. Using this capability allows us to slice out just records that we haven’t consumed yet. Specifying COUNT 2 lets us bound the number of records read so that we can process the stream in efficient batches.

Versus Kafka

Kafka is a popular system component that also makes a nice alternative for a unified log implementation; and once everything is in place, probably a better one compared to Redis thanks to its sophisticated design around high availability and other advanced features.

Redis streams aren’t exciting for their innovativeness, but rather than they bring building a unified log architecture within reach of a small and/or inexpensive app. Kafka is infamously difficult to configure and get running, and is expensive to operate once you do. Pricing for a small Kafka cluster on Heroku costs $100 a month and climbs steeply from there. It’s temping to think you can do it more cheaply yourself, but after factoring in server and personnel costs along with the time it takes to build working expertise in the system, it’ll cost more.

Redis on the other hand is probably already in your stack. Being the Swiss army knife of cloud persistence, it’s useful for a multitude of things including caching, rate limiting, storing user sessions, etc. Even if you don’t already have it, you can compile it from source and get it configured and running in all of about thirty seconds. Dozens of cloud providers (including big ones like AWS) offer a hosted version.

Once you’re operating at serious scale, Kafka might be the right fit. In the meantime, Redis streams make a great (and economic) alternative.

Configuring Redis for durability

One highly desirable property of a unified log is that it’s durable, meaning that even if its host crashes or something terrible happens, it doesn’t lose information that producers think they had persisted.

By default Redis is not durable; a sane configuration choice when it’s been used for caching or rate limiting, but not when it’s being used for a log. To make Redis fully durable, tell it to keep an append-only file (AOF) with appendonly and instruct it to perform fsync on every command written to the AOF with appendfsync always (more details in the Redis documentation on persistence):

appendonly yes
appendfsync always

There’s an inherent tradeoff between durability and performance (ever wonder how MongoDB performed so well on its early benchmarks?). Redis doing the extra work to keep an AOF and performing more fsyncs will make commands slower (although still very fast). If you’re using it for multiple things, it might be useful to make a distinction between places where ephemerality is okay and where it isn’t, and run two separate Redises with different configuration.

Unified Rocket Rides

We’re going to be returning to the Rocket Rides example that we talked about while implementing idempotency keys. As a quick reminder, Rocket Rides is a Lyft-like app that lets its users get rides with pilots wearing jetpacks; a vast improvement in speed and adrenaline flow over the every day banality of a car.

As new rides come in, the Unified Rocket Rides API will emit a new record to the stream that contains the ID of the ride and the distance traveled. From there, a couple different consumers will read the stream and keep a running tally of the total distance traveled for every ride in the system that’s been taken.

Clients sending data to the API which passes it onto the stream and is ingested by stream consumers.

Both producer and consumers will be using database transactions to guarantee that all information is correct. No matter what kind of failures occur in clients, API, consumers, or elsewhere in the system, the totals being tracked by consumers should always agree with each other for any given Redis or ride ID.

A working version of all this code is available in the Unified Rocket Rides repository. It might be easier to download that code and follow along that way:

git clone

At-least once design

For systems powered by a unified log, resilience and correctness are the name of the game. Consumers shouldn’t just get most messages that a producer sends, they should get every message. To that end programs are built to guarantee at-least once delivery semantics. Messages are usually sent once, but in cases where there’s uncertainty around whether the transmission occurred, a message will be sent as many times as necessary to be sure.

At-least once delivery is opposed to best-effort delivery where messages will be received once under normal conditions, but may be dropped in degraded cases. It’s also opposed by exactly-once delivery; a panacea of distributed systems. Exactly-once delivery is a difficult guarantee to make, and even if possible, would add costly coordination overhead to transmission. In practice, at-least once semantics are robust and easy to work with as long as systems are built to consider them from the beginning.


The Unified Rocket Rides API receives requests over HTTP for new rides from clients. When it does it (1) creates a ride entry in the local database, and (2) emits a record into the unified log to show that it did.

post "/rides" do
  params = validate_params(request)

  DB.transaction(isolation: :serializable) do
    ride = Ride.create(
      distance: params["distance"]

      action: ACTION_CREATE,
      object: OBJECT_RIDE,
      data: Sequel.pg_jsonb({
        distance: ride.distance,

    [201, JSON.generate(wrap_ok(
      Messages.ok(distance: params["distance"].round(1))

Rather than emit directly to Redis, a “staged” record is created in Postgres. This indirection is useful so that in case the request’s transaction rolls back due to a serialization error or other problem, no invalid data (i.e. data that was only relevant in a now-aborted transaction) is left in the log. This principle is identical to that of transactionally-staged job drains, which do the same thing for background work.

The staged records relation in Postgres look like:

CREATE TABLE staged_log_records (
    action TEXT      NOT NULL,
    data   JSONB     NOT NULL,
    object TEXT      NOT NULL

The streamer

The streamer moves staged records into Redis once they become visible outside of the transaction that created them. It runs as a separate process, and sends records in batches for improved efficiency.

def run_once
  num_streamed = 0

  # Need at least repeatable read isolation level so that our DELETE after
  # enqueueing will see the same records as the original SELECT.
  DB.transaction(isolation_level: :repeatable_read) do
    records = StagedLogRecord.order(:id).limit(BATCH_SIZE)

    unless records.empty?
      RDB.multi do
        records.each do |record|
          num_streamed += 1

          $stdout.puts "Enqueued record: #{record.action} #{record.object}"

      StagedLogRecord.where(Sequel.lit("id <= ?",


# private

# Number of records to try to stream on each batch.
private_constant :BATCH_SIZE

private def stream(data)
  # XADD mystream MAXLEN ~ 10000  * data <JSON-encoded blob>
  # MAXLEN ~ 10000 caps the stream at roughly that number (the "~" trades
  # precision for speed) so that it doesn't grow in a purely unbounded way.
    "*", "data", JSON.generate(data))

In accordance with at-least once design, the streamer only removes staged records once their receipt has been confirmed by Redis. If part of the workflow fails then the process will run again and select the same batch of records from staged_log_records a second time. They’ll be re-emitted into the stream even if it means that some consumers will see them twice.

Records are sent to the stream with ascending ride ids. It’s possible for a record with a smaller id to be present after one with a higher id, but only in the case of a double-send. With the exception of that one caveat, consumers can always assume that they’re receiving ids in order.

Log truncation

Unlike a queue, consumers don’t remove records from a log, and without management it would be in danger of growing in an unbounded way. In the example above, the streamer uses the MAXLEN argument to XADD to tell Redis that the stream should have a maximum length. The tilde (~) operator is an optimization that indicates to Redis that the stream should be truncated to approximately the specified length when it’s possible to remove an entire node. This is significantly faster than trying to prune it to an exact number.

This rough truncation will work well in most of the time, but lack of safety measures means that it’s possible that records might be removed which have not yet been read by a consumer that’s fallen way behind. A more resilient system should track the progress of each consumer and only truncate records that are no longer needed by any of them.

Consumers & checkpointing

Consumers read records out of the log in batches and consume them one-by-one. When a batch has been successfully processed, they set a checkpoint containing the ID of the last record consumed. The next time a consumer restarts (due to a crash or otherwise), it reads its last checkpoint and starts reading the log from the ID that it contained.

Checkpoints are stored as a relation in Postgres:

CREATE TABLE checkpoints (
    id            BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
    name          TEXT      NOT NULL UNIQUE,
    last_redis_id TEXT      NOT NULL,
    last_ride_id  BIGINT    NOT NULL

Recall that in our simple example, consumers add up the distance of every ride created on the platform. We’ll keep this running tally in a consumer_states table which has an entry for each consumer:

CREATE TABLE consumer_states (
    id             BIGSERIAL        PRIMARY KEY,
    name           TEXT             NOT NULL UNIQUE,
    total_distance DOUBLE PRECISION NOT NULL

The code for a consumer to iterate the stream and update its checkpoint and state will look a little like this:

def run_once
  num_consumed = 0

  DB.transaction do
    checkpoint = Checkpoint.first(name: name)

    # "-" is a special symbol in Redis streams that dictates that we should
    # start from the earliest record in the stream. If we don't already have
    # a checkpoint, we start with that.
    start_id = "-"
    start_id = self.class.increment(checkpoint.last_redis_id) unless checkpoint.nil?

    checkpoint = name, last_ride_id: 0) if checkpoint.nil?

    records = RDB.xrange(STREAM_NAME, start_id, "+", "COUNT", BATCH_SIZE)
    unless records.empty?
      # get or create a new state for this consumer
      state = ConsumerState.first(name: name)
      state = name, total_distance: 0.0) if state.nil?

      records.each do |record|
        redis_id, fields = record

        # ["data", "{\"id\":123}"] -> {"data"=>"{\"id\":123}"}
        fields = Hash[*fields]

        data = JSON.parse(fields["data"])

        # if the ride's ID is lower or equal to one that we know we consumed,
        # skip it; this is a double send
        if data["id"] <= checkpoint.last_ride_id
          $stdout.puts "Skipped record: #{fields["data"]} " \
            "(already consumed this ride ID)"

        state.total_distance += data["distance"]

        $stdout.puts "Consumed record: #{fields["data"]} " \
        num_consumed += 1

        checkpoint.last_redis_id = redis_id
        checkpoint.last_ride_id = data["id"]

      # now that all records for this round are consumed, persist state

      # and persist the changes to the checkpoint


Like the streamer, the consumer is designed with at-least once semantics in mind. In the event of a crash, neither the total_distance or the checkpoint is updated because a raised exception aborts the transaction that wraps the entire set of operations. When the consumer restarts, it happily consumes the last batch again with no ill effects.

Along with a Redis stream ID, a checkpoint also tracks the last consumed ride ID. This is so consumers can handle records that were written to the stream more than once. IDs can always be assumed to be ordered and if a consumer sees an ID smaller or equal to one that it knows that it consumes, it safely skips to the next record.

Simulating failure

I’ve claimed this system is fault-tolerant, but it’s more believable if I can demonstrate it. Operating at our small scale we’re unlikely to see many problems, so processes are written to simulate some. 10% of the time, the streamer will double-send every event in a batch. This models it failing midway through sending a batch and having to retry the entire operation.

Likewise, each consumer will crash 10% of the time after handling a batch but before committing the transaction that would set its state and checkpoint.

The system’s been designed to handle these edge cases and despite the artificial problems, it will manage itself gracefully. Run forego start (after following the appropriate setup in and leave the fleet of processes running. Despite the double sends and each consumer failing randomly and independently, no matter how long you wait, the consumers should always stay roughly caught up to each other and show the same total_distance reading for any given ID.

Here’s consumer0 and consumer1 showing an identical total for ride 521:

consumer0.1 | Consumed record: {"id":521,"distance":539.836923415231}
consumer1.1 | Consumed record: {"id":521,"distance":539.836923415231}

Other considerations

Non-transactional consumers & idempotency

Consumers don’t necessarily have to be transactional as long as the work they do while consuming records can be re-applied cleanly given at-least once semantics. Another way of saying this is that a consumer doesn’t need a transaction as long as every operation it applies is idempotent.

Notably our example here wouldn’t yield correct results without being nested in a transaction: if it successfully updated total_count but failed to set the checkpoint, then it would double-count the distance of those records the next time it tried to consume them.

But if all operations are idempotent, we could remove the transaction. An example of this is a consumer that’s reading a stream to add, update, or remove information in a data warehouse. As long as creation records are treated as something like an upsert instead of INSERT and a deletion is tolerant if the target doesn’t exist, then all operations can safely be considered to be idempotent.

Versus Postgres logical replication

Postgres aficionados might notice that what we’ve built looks pretty similar to logical replication in Postgres 10, which can similarly guarantee that all emitted data makes it from producer to consumer.

There are a few advantages to using a stream over logical replication:

  • It’s possible to have multiple producers move information to a single stream without sharing a database.
  • Producers can stream a public representation of data instead of one tied to their internal schema. This allows producers to change their internal schema without breaking consumers.
  • You’re less likely to leave yourself tied into fairly esoteric internal features of Postgres. Understanding how to best configure and operate subscriptions and replication slots won’t be trivial.

Are delivery guarantees absolute?

Nothing in software is absolute. We’ve built architecture based on powerful primitives in system design like ACID transactions and at-least once delivery semantics, and in practice, it’s likely to be quite robust. But not even a transaction can protect us from every bug, and eventually something’s going to go wrong enough that these safety features won’t be enough – for example, the code to stage stream records in the API might be accidentally removed through human error. Even if it’s noticed and fixed quickly, some inconsistency will have been introduced into the system.

Consumers that require absolute precision will need a secondary mechanism that they can run occasionally to reconcile their state against canonical sources. In Unified Rocket Rides, we might run a nightly job that reduces distances across every known ride and emits a tuple of (total_distance, last_ride_id) that consumers can use to reset their state before continuing to consume the stream.

Log-based architecture

Log-based architecture provides an effective backbone for distributed systems by being fast, efficient, and resilient. Redis streams will provide (when available at roughly the end of the year) a user-friendly and ubiquitous log implementation with which to it. Even while Kafka will continue to be beneficial to the largest of web platforms, a stack built on Redis and Postgres will serve quite well right up until that point.

1 The expectation currently is that streams will be available in the Redis 4.0 series by the end of the year.

Redis Streams and the Unified Log was published on November 8, 2017 from San Francisco.

Find me on Twitter at @brandur.

Please post comments and discussion to Hacker News.

Did I make a mistake? Please consider sending a pull request.