29Metals Software Engineer Interview Questions & Guide 2026

The 60-second brief

A Software Engineer at 29Metals plays a pivotal role in bridging the gap between cutting-edge technical innovation and the complex, high-stakes environment of modern mining operations. You would build and maintain the digital infrastructure that 29Metals teams use to optimize production, manage complex underground scheduling, and ensure the safety and efficiency of the company's assets.

Scope in the operational half of the job when the seat carries on-call. Rollout, rollback and what you would put on a dashboard belong inside a design answer rather than after it, and an answer that never reaches them reads as someone who has built systems but not run them.

Focus areas

• Choose indexes from the query's access path
• Make every write idempotent under retry
• Paginate large result sets with keyset cursors

Overview

This role is not just about writing code; it is about solving real-world engineering challenges that impact the bottom line and operational sustainability of 29Metals. You will collaborate with cross-functional teams—including production, electrical, and backfill engineers—to translate operational requirements into robust software solutions. It is a unique opportunity to apply software engineering principles to a sector that is increasingly data-driven and technology-reliant.

The 29Metals interview process

29Metals candidates report 2 rounds · ≈ 2-4 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Behavioral Screening

This round is deciding whether a change you make without supervision can be allowed to reach production. It is scored on what you knew at the moment you decided, not on how it turned out, so a story that opens with the result and works backwards reads as luck retold as judgement. Say what the options were, what you did not know, what you did to shrink the unknown before committing, and what you accepted as the worst plausible case. The detail that separates answers is a bound: how many users, how much data, and for how long, if you had been wrong.

What to demonstrate

• Whether the reasoning you give was available at the time you decided rather than after the result came in, since a story whose deciding evidence arrived later describes an outcome and not a judgement
• Whether you can put units on the exposure (users, rows, minutes of degraded service) and whether the containment you chose actually bounded it: a canary bounds the request path it fronts, while a background job writing to a shared table reaches every user regardless of which version served their requests
• Whether the reversal path existed before you shipped or was improvised during the incident, and whether it restores state or only stops further damage

How to prepare

• For your three largest changes, write down the one thing you would have had to be wrong about for it to fail, and what your best estimate of it was on the day you shipped. If you never held an estimate, that is the gap the follow-up questions will find
• Write the undo procedure for one of those changes as it existed at the time, then mark which steps restore data and which only stop new damage. Turning a flag off or reverting a deploy ends the new writes; rows already written come back only from a copy you kept, and a dropped column comes back empty unless something outside the schema holds the values
• Rehearse one story from the decision point forward and stop before the outcome, then have someone ask what you would do next. If the story only works with the ending attached, it is an anecdote rather than a decision you can defend

Technical Discussions

The same problem is scored by two different mechanisms depending on the format, and preparing for one does not cover the other. With a person watching, partial progress is visible and a hint is a correction you can absorb; silence is the expensive failure, because nobody can read a half-written function. With an automated grader there is no partial credit for what you were about to do, nobody to ask, and the worked examples in the prompt are the entire specification. Read them as a contract, down to whether an empty result should be an empty list or no output at all.

What to demonstrate

• In a live session, whether your commentary tracks what your hands are doing, and whether a hint redirects you or gets defended against
• In an automated one, whether you cover the cases the examples do not show, since the hidden cases are where the score moves
• Whether you manage the clock on purpose: abandoning an approach that is not converging while there is still time to write something simpler that finishes

How to prepare

• Have someone hand you a problem and feed you one deliberately wrong hint. Practise testing it against a concrete case instead of accepting or rejecting it on authority.
• Do one timed run a week in a plain browser editor with autocomplete, linting and your own snippets switched off, which is closer to what these environments give you
• For the automated format, write the harness before the solution: a main that feeds the worked examples plus an empty and a single-element case and prints expected against actual, so a wrong submission is caught by you first

Where candidates lose points

Paginating with LIMIT/OFFSET over a set that changes while the client is reading it

OFFSET n makes the database produce and discard n rows before returning anything, so the cost of a page grows with its depth rather than with its size and page 500 costs five hundred pages of work. The correctness problem is worse than the cost: if a row is inserted or reordered between two page fetches, rows shift across the offset boundary and are either skipped entirely or returned twice, and neither outcome leaves any trace in the response for the client to detect. Keyset pagination - WHERE (sort_key, id) < ($last_sort_key, $last_id) ORDER BY sort_key DESC, id DESC LIMIT n, backed by an index in exactly that order - reads only the rows it returns and is stable against concurrent inserts. It requires the tie-break column: a timestamp is not unique, and duplicate sort keys straddling a page boundary reintroduce the skip it was adopted to remove.

Assuming an isolation level prevents the anomaly you actually have

Isolation levels are named by the SQL standard but implemented differently, so any claim about one is only true of a named engine. PostgreSQL defaults to READ COMMITTED, where every statement takes a fresh snapshot, so two statements inside one transaction can legitimately disagree about the same row. Its REPEATABLE READ is snapshot isolation: it removes non-repeatable and phantom reads but permits write skew, where two transactions each read a set, each conclude their own write is safe, both commit, and the combined result violates a constraint that no single row expresses. Only SERIALIZABLE closes that, and it closes it by aborting a transaction with a serialization failure (SQLSTATE 40001), which means the guarantee is theoretical unless the application has a retry loop. InnoDB's REPEATABLE READ is a different mechanism again - plain SELECTs read a consistent snapshot while locking reads and writes see the latest committed row - so a read-modify-write inside one transaction can act on a value that the transaction's own earlier SELECT never returned.

Reading the constraints as preamble rather than as part of the problem

The bounds are usually there to eliminate the obvious approach: n up to 10^5 makes an O(n^2) scan roughly 10^10 operations, far outside any per-test time budget, and an input larger than memory rules out loading it at all. When a bound is not given, ask for it, then say out loud which approach it kills.

Never running a concrete value through the code

Trace one small input and one edge input by hand, index by index, out loud. Re-reading your own code catches design mistakes; walking a real value through it catches the off-by-one, the uninitialised accumulator and the loop that never advances.

Questions & practice

Archive a resource graph without breaking live references or recursing

Medium · graph traversal · topological order · tenant isolation

Resources reference other resources within a tenant; for the largest tenant the reference table holds up to 2,000,000 nodes and 8,000,000 edges. Archiving a resource must archive everything reachable from it that nothing outside the set still references, refuse when a live external referrer exists, and terminate when references form cycles, which they legitimately do. Produce the archive order and the refusal list, targeting O(V+E). Say what stops the traversal crossing a tenant boundary, and why recursion is the wrong control structure at this size.

Approach

1. Load the subgraph with the tenant predicate on both endpoints of the edge, not only on the side you started from. Scoping the left table alone is the classic cross-tenant leak: one mis-entered edge then pulls another tenant's resources into the traversal and, worse, into the archive.
2. Traverse iteratively with an explicit stack. A 2,000,000-node graph can hold a chain deep enough to exhaust a native stack in the low tens of thousands of frames, and that failure is a process crash rather than an error you can return.
3. Treat cycles as data rather than corruption: compute strongly connected components with Tarjan in O(V+E) using its own explicit stack, then condense. The condensation is a DAG, so a topological order over it gives the archive order, and every member of a component archives in one transaction because no order within a cycle is valid.
4. Decide refusals with reverse edges. A candidate is archivable only if every in-edge originates inside the candidate set, so build the transpose or count in-degrees restricted to the visited set, and emit each blocked resource with the id of the external referrer, which is the only part of the answer an operator can act on.
5. Store the graph as CSR rather than a map of lists: an offsets array of V+1 8-byte entries plus E 8-byte targets is about 80 MB at this size, where boxed adjacency lists cost several times that and lose cache locality on every hop.
6. Run Kahn over the condensation for the order in O(V+E). If the emitted count is short of the component count the condensation step itself is wrong, since a condensation cannot contain a cycle, which makes the check free.

Worked solution (30 min)

1. Write the edge-loading query with the tenant predicate on both endpoints and state what it does with a cross-tenant edge.
2. Implement iterative Tarjan with an explicit stack and confirm on a three-node cycle that it emits one component of size three.
3. Build the transpose restricted to the visited set and mark every node with an in-edge from outside it as refused, carrying the referrer id.
4. Run Kahn over the condensation and verify the emitted order against the referrer-before-referenced rule.
5. Size the CSR arrays for 2,000,000 nodes and 8,000,000 edges and compare against a boxed adjacency map.

Expected result: An iterative O(V+E) traversal over a tenant-scoped CSR subgraph, SCC condensation so cycles archive atomically as one component, a transpose-based refusal list naming the external referrer for each blocked resource, and a Kahn topological order over the condensation, with recursion replaced by an explicit stack because of graph depth rather than style.

Verify it yourself

• A two-node cycle with no external referrers archives as one unit, and adding a single external referrer moves both nodes to the refusal list.
• No resource appears in the archive order before something that references it, except within its own component.
• A counter on edge visits matches the loaded edge count exactly, confirming each edge is traversed once.

Follow-up

• The graph is read in one query and the archive writes a minute later. What can change in between, and how do you make the write safe?
• The candidate set is 400,000 resources. Is that one transaction, and if not, what does a half-finished archive look like to a reader?
• An edge points at a resource in another tenant. Is that a refusal, an error, or an alert?

Merge partitioned event streams into one ordered feed with bounded lateness

Hard · k-way merge · watermarks · out-of-order streams

The read-model service consumes 64 log partitions carrying about 4,000 events per second in total. Each partition is ordered within itself, but partitions drift by up to 30 seconds, and the activity feed must present a tenant's events in occurred_at order. Produce the merge. State its complexity, the buffer it requires in events and in bytes, what happens when one partition is idle, and what you do with an event that arrives after you have already emitted its position. Payloads average 1 KB.

Approach

1. Merge with a min-heap over the 64 partition heads keyed on (occurred_at, event_id): O(log P) per event and O(n log P) overall. The tie-break on event_id is what makes the output deterministic when two partitions carry the same millisecond, which matters because the feed is paginated and a non-deterministic order reorders pages under the reader.
2. Emitting the heap head is only correct once every partition has produced everything up to that timestamp, so the emit condition is a watermark: the minimum across partitions of the highest occurred_at seen, less the allowed lateness. Events are held until the watermark passes them, which is what turns individually ordered streams into a jointly ordered one.
3. Size the buffer from the lateness rather than guessing: 4,000 events per second times 30 seconds is 120,000 buffered events, and at 1 KB each about 120 MB of heap. That number is the real price of the ordering guarantee and belongs in front of whoever asked for it.
4. Handle the idle partition explicitly, because it fails the feed rather than corrupting it: a partition with no traffic never advances its own maximum, so the watermark freezes and output stops entirely. Either every partition emits a periodic idle marker carrying the broker's current time, or the watermark falls back to wall clock for a partition silent beyond a threshold.
5. Choose the late-event policy from what the projection is keyed on. The projection upserts on (aggregate_id, aggregate_version) and discards a version it has already applied, so a late event is safe to apply out of order and correctness never depended on the merge at all. Apply it, recompute the affected feed page, and count lateness so the 30-second budget can be re-derived from data rather than folklore.
6. Say what the merge does not buy: ordering is guaranteed within one aggregate by the log's partitioning, and no watermark makes the cross-aggregate order authoritative. Two events from different aggregates in the same millisecond have no true order, so the feed's order is a presentation choice that must be stable rather than correct.

Follow-up

• The lateness budget is raised to five minutes. What is the new buffer, and what besides memory changes?
• The consumer restarts. Where does it resume from, and what does the feed look like for the first 30 seconds?
• One partition is ten minutes behind because its producer is slow. Do you stall the feed or emit without it?

Find overlapping job attempts and peak concurrency from lease records

Medium · sweep line · intervals · leases

A day of job_run history yields about 50,000,000 attempt records: (job_run_id, job_type, attempt, started_at, finished_at which is NULL when the worker died, lease_expires_at). Leases expire on a clock, so a job that outran its lease ran twice. Produce (a) every job_run_id whose attempts overlapped in wall-clock time and (b) the peak number of simultaneously running attempts per job_type with the minute it occurred. Target O(n log n). State how you treat a NULL finished_at and what clock skew does to your answer.

Approach

1. Define the interval before sorting anything: an attempt occupies [started_at, COALESCE(finished_at, lease_expires_at)). finished_at is observed and lease_expires_at is only a promise, so every attempt without a finish contributes an estimate and the whole result is a lower bound on overlap rather than an exact count.
2. For peak concurrency, sweep: emit 2n endpoints, sort by (timestamp, kind) with ends ordered before starts at equal timestamps, then walk the sequence maintaining a counter per job_type and record each type's maximum with its timestamp. O(n log n) dominated by the sort, O(n) space, or O(1) extra if the sort is external and the walk streams.
3. For overlap detection, do not compare attempts pairwise. A single global sort by (job_run_id, started_at) gives both the grouping and the order; within a group, keep the maximum end seen so far and report an overlap exactly when the next start is less than that running maximum, which is one linear pass after the sort.
4. Half-open intervals matter and are easy to get wrong: with closed intervals an attempt ending at the same millisecond another begins reads as concurrency two, and across 50,000,000 records that artefact swamps the real signal.
5. State the clock caveat: started_at and finished_at are written by different workers, so under skew of a few hundred milliseconds an apparent overlap shorter than that bound is not evidence. Filter reported overlaps by a minimum duration, or prefer timestamps written by whichever component heartbeats the lease.
6. Scale the sort rather than assuming it fits: the sweep emits two endpoints per attempt, so 50,000,000 records become 100,000,000 endpoints, and at roughly 24 bytes each, an 8-byte timestamp plus a 4-byte job_type plus a kind flag padded to alignment, that is about 2.4 GB of sort keys before any scratch space. Either push the ordering into the database behind an index on (job_type, started_at) or run an external merge sort in chunks; the overlap pass sorts n records rather than 2n, so it is the cheaper of the two.

Follow-up

• A handler is not idempotent and you have found 400 overlapping jobs. Which of them actually caused damage, and what would you query to find out?
• Peak concurrency for one job_type is 4 against a configured cap of 4. Is the cap working, or is the data hiding attempts that never started?
• How would you compute both answers incrementally as records arrive rather than in a daily batch?

Keep soft-deleted accounts from blocking re-registration

Easy · soft delete · unique constraints · engine differences

app_user holds user_id, tenant_id, email CITEXT, password_hash (NULL for SSO principals), email_verified_at, auth_version, status ('invited','active','suspended','deactivated'), created_at, updated_at, deleted_at. Two live accounts for one address inside a tenant must be impossible, but an address freed by a soft delete must be reusable, and the same tenant may delete and re-register it repeatedly. Write the uniqueness DDL for PostgreSQL 16, then the equivalent for MySQL 8 where partial indexes do not exist, and say what each permits once three deleted rows already hold that address.

Approach

1. Start from what is actually unique: not (tenant_id, email), but (tenant_id, email) among live rows. PostgreSQL says that directly — CREATE UNIQUE INDEX app_user_live_email ON app_user (tenant_id, email) WHERE deleted_at IS NULL. A full constraint over the same two columns burns the address permanently the first time someone deletes an account.
2. Keep case-insensitivity in the type or the index, never in the application: CITEXT as given, or UNIQUE (tenant_id, lower(email)) as an expression index where the extension is unavailable. A case-sensitive unique column is exactly how two accounts for one human appear.
3. For MySQL 8 the predicate has to move inside the key: add a discriminator column that is a constant 0 while the row is live and is set to user_id on delete, with UNIQUE (tenant_id, email, deleted_marker). Live rows share the constant and still collide; deleted rows differ from each other and stop colliding.
4. State the NULL variant and its dependency: leaving the marker NULL for deleted rows also works, because a unique index treats NULLs as distinct — true in MySQL, and true in PostgreSQL only under the default NULLS DISTINCT, which PostgreSQL 15 lets you reverse. Check the polarity against the three existing deleted rows: constant-on-live is what preserves the collision you want, and reversing it silently admits duplicate live accounts.
5. Say what a soft delete must do besides setting deleted_at: increment auth_version so existing tokens stop validating, leave resource.owner_user_id and resource_revision.actor_user_id intact, and accept that the address is retained — erasure is a different requirement answered by scrubbing the column, not by a DELETE that would break those references.

Follow-up

• A deleted account re-registers with the same address the next day. Do the old resource rows follow the new user_id, and how does the API keep the two principals apart?
• How do you honour an erasure request while resource_revision.actor_user_id still references this table?
• What changes if a user may hold membership in two tenants?

Stop tag and share joins from fanning out a page

Medium · join fan-out · semi-joins · many-to-many

resource_tag is (resource_id, tag_id) with PK (resource_id, tag_id); resource_share is (resource_id, shared_with_user_id, permission). The tagged-and-shared listing inner-joins resource to both, filters tenant_id, tag_id = ANY($2) and shared_with_user_id = $3, orders by updated_at DESC and takes 50. Pages come back with fewer than 50 distinct resources and the total in the header is far too high. Explain the row multiplication, rewrite both the page query and the count query so each is correct, and name the index each one needs. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

1. Do the arithmetic against the predicates that are actually there. An inner join emits one row per matching child row, and both joins are filtered: tag_id = ANY($2) admits only the requested tags, shared_with_user_id = $3 admits one user's share rows. So a resource holding three of the requested tags and shared with $3 once yields three rows, not one — the multiplier is its count of matching tags times its share rows for that single user, and that second factor is 1 unless the table admits duplicate (resource_id, shared_with_user_id) pairs. LIMIT 50 then limits rows rather than resources, and COUNT(*) counts pairs — the header is the product, not the population.
2. Reject DISTINCT as the fix. It deduplicates after the product has been built, so the planner must materialise and sort the fanned-out set before the LIMIT can apply, and it leaves any SUM or AVG in the same select list wrong.
3. Rewrite both filters as semi-joins, keeping resource as the only row source: AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM resource_tag rt WHERE rt.resource_id = r.resource_id AND rt.tag_id = ANY($2)) and the same shape against resource_share. A semi-join stops at the first match per resource and preserves the driving index order, so ORDER BY updated_at DESC, resource_id DESC LIMIT 50 still stops after 50 rows.
4. Count with the same predicates and no join at all: SELECT count(*) FROM resource r WHERE r.tenant_id = $1 AND r.status = 'active' AND EXISTS (...) AND EXISTS (...). Nothing multiplies a resource, so the number is the population.
5. Attach the tags for display after the page has been cut — LEFT JOIN LATERAL (SELECT array_agg(rt.tag_id) FROM resource_tag rt WHERE rt.resource_id = p.resource_id) ON TRUE over the 50 returned rows. Aggregate over the page, never over the tenant.
6. Index both directions and say which query each serves: PK (resource_id, tag_id) serves the lateral lookup, (tag_id, resource_id) serves the EXISTS probe by tag, and resource_share needs (shared_with_user_id, resource_id) for the same reason. An index covering one direction only leaves the other as a scan.

Worked solution (30 min)

1. Build a tenant where each resource carries 0-5 tags from a 20-tag vocabulary and is shared with 0-4 distinct users, then bind $2 to three tags and $3 to a user holding shares on about half the resources. Run the joined query and compare its row count to the distinct resource count on page one.
2. Run COUNT(*) on the joined shape and on the EXISTS shape and compare both to a ground truth computed from distinct ids; then give $3 a second permission row on 10% of resources and record which of the two counts moves.
3. EXPLAIN both page queries and compare rows-read plus the presence of a Sort or HashAggregate node above the join.
4. Add (tag_id, resource_id), re-run the EXISTS probe, and record the plan change on the inner side.

Expected result: The EXISTS page returns exactly 50 distinct resources and reads about 50 driving rows with no aggregate above the join. The EXISTS count matches the ground truth. The joined COUNT(*) is larger by roughly the average number of matching tags per qualifying resource — the tags it holds from $2, not its total tag count — times its share rows for $3, which is 1 until the duplicate permission rows exist and rises with them afterwards. The EXISTS count is unchanged by those duplicates.

Verify it yourself

• The page's resource_id list has no duplicates and is 50 long whenever at least 50 rows match.
• count(*) from the rewrite equals count(DISTINCT r.resource_id) over the joined shape.
• EXPLAIN shows a semi-join node on the inner side rather than a full join followed by a unique or aggregate step.

Follow-up

• The filter changes from 'any of these tags' to 'all of these tags'. Rewrite it and state what it costs relative to the ANY form.
• A resource can be shared with the same user twice under different permissions. Does your count change, and should it?
• Where does the correct total come from when the tenant holds 4M resources and the header must not cost 200 ms?

Explain your approach to integrating legacy industrial hardware with modern software architectures.

Medium

Approach

1. Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
2. Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
3. State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.

Follow-up

• What assumption would you test first?
• How would you know your answer was wrong?

How do you ensure the scalability of a system designed to handle real-time sensor data from underground operations?

Medium

Approach

1. Work from the requirement backwards to the design.
2. State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
3. Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.

Follow-up

• What assumption would you test first?
• How would you know your answer was wrong?

Keep one unresponsive destination from stalling all webhook delivery

Medium · fan-out · circuit breaker · timeouts · bulkheads

Egress delivery sends about 1.5k webhooks/second to 40k destinations, with a per-destination concurrency cap of 4 and a 10-second connect-plus-read timeout. One destination begins accepting connections and never responding; within the hour 150 destinations behave the same way. Design the delivery path so unrelated destinations are unaffected: the pool structure, the timeouts, the retry policy, the per-destination circuit, and what is recorded so a retry is not a second effect at the receiver. State how many in-flight slots the degraded destinations hold and why that number decides the design.

Approach

1. Start with the number, and with the law that produces it. In-flight work is arrival rate times time in service, so 1.5k/second against a healthy 200 ms response needs about 300 concurrent slots. Per destination the same product applies, ceilinged by the concurrency cap: at the fleet average of 0.0375 deliveries/second per destination (1.5k spread over 40k) a 10-second timeout is 0.375 slots. A destination that has queued retries behind it is a different regime - every slot refills the instant an attempt expires, so it sits pinned at its cap of 4 - and 150 of those hold 600 slots, more than a pool sized for healthy traffic, entirely consumed by endpoints that will never answer. The per-destination cap bounds one endpoint and says nothing about the aggregate, which is exactly why it alone is not containment.
2. Contain with bulkheads and an admission bound rather than a larger pool. Cap total in-flight per pool and shard destinations across pools by a hash of destination id, so a correlated group - one provider, one region - cannot exceed its pool's share. A delivery refused admission and re-queued with backoff is strictly better than one holding a slot on behalf of a receiver that is not listening.
3. Treat the timeout as two timeouts, and be exact about what shortening one buys. Connect and read are separate failures and both must be shorter than the budget of whatever is waiting. Occupancy is min(cap, arrival rate x timeout), so dropping the read ceiling from 10 seconds to 3 cuts a merely slow destination's occupancy proportionally, 0.375 slots to 0.11 at the fleet average. It does not cut the 4 slots held by one of the 150: a destination with a retry backlog arrives far above cap/timeout - 0.4/second at a 10-second timeout, 1.33/second at 3 - so it stays pinned at the cap either way and only the slot-seconds per attempt fall. What that does buy is detection rate: 3.3x more failures observed per second on the same four slots, which is how fast the circuit reaches its threshold. Pick the value from the measured latency distribution of successful deliveries, with their high percentile as the floor, not from a round number.
4. Add a circuit per destination, counting a timeout as a failure. Once open, fail fast without taking a slot - that is the whole point, converting 4 held slots into zero. Half-open on a schedule with exactly one probe and close only if the probe succeeds, so a permanently dead endpoint costs one request per interval instead of a growing retry queue.
5. Make retries safe and non-synchronising. Back off with full jitter, sleeping a random value in [0, min(cap, base x 2^attempt)], because a fixed delay re-synchronises every failed delivery to one destination into a simultaneous burst. Delivery is at-least-once, so the payload carries the event id under the signature and the receiver deduplicates on it; record the attempt against (destination, event id) rather than a bare success flag, so a lost response does not become a second business effect on the other side.

Worked solution (25 min)

1. Compute healthy in-flight from rate times latency, then slots held by 150 destinations at the cap and the full timeout, and compare both against one pool size.
2. Write the pool sharding rule and the admission bound, and state what a refused delivery does next.
3. Pick connect and read timeouts from the success-latency distribution, then compute min(cap, arrival rate x timeout) for an average destination and for one with a retry backlog, and say which of the two the shorter timeout actually moves.
4. Write the circuit's state machine with its open threshold, probe interval and close condition, and the backoff formula with full jitter.

Expected result: Destinations sharded across bounded pools with a total in-flight cap per pool, separate connect and read timeouts chosen from the success-latency distribution, a per-destination circuit that fails fast while open and probes once per interval, and full-jitter backoff on retry. A shorter read timeout lowers occupancy only for destinations arriving below cap/timeout; a dead destination with a retry backlog stays pinned at its cap of 4 whatever the timeout, and the circuit opening is what takes it to zero. Deliveries carry a signed event id the receiver deduplicates on, and attempts are recorded per (destination, event id). Degraded destinations hold at most their pool's share rather than 600 slots of a shared pool.

Verify it yourself

• Slots held by degraded destinations are bounded by the pool shard, not by how many destinations degrade.
• An open circuit reduces slots held by that destination to zero between probes.
• Lowering the read timeout does not reduce successful deliveries, verified against the measured success-latency distribution, and does not by itself reduce the slots a backlogged dead destination holds.
• A redelivered event is discarded by the receiver on its event id rather than applied twice.

Follow-up

• The destination is not dead - it answers in 9.5 seconds with a 200. Does a failure-rate circuit open? Should anything shed that traffic, and on what signal?
• One destination requires deliveries in order. What does a per-destination concurrency of 4 do to that guarantee, and what would you change to offer it?
• A destination has been parked six hours with 900k undelivered events. What does resuming look like, and is delivering the whole backlog the right call?

One customer endpoint stalls deliveries to every other destination

Medium · bulkhead · timeouts · saturation · retry amplification

The egress service delivers about 1.5k webhooks/second across 40,000 destinations, with a per-destination concurrency cap of 4 and a 10-second connect-plus-read timeout. Throughput falls to 300/second, queue depth climbs, and p99 delivery latency for unaffected destinations goes from 200 ms to minutes, while the error rate barely moves. One tenant holds 900 destination rows whose URLs share a hostname that now answers in 9.5 seconds. Explain the mechanism with the arithmetic, then give the containment in the order you would apply it.

Approach

1. Look at saturation before errors. A flat error rate with collapsing throughput says nothing is failing, things are waiting, so the first signal to pull is in-flight request count or pool wait time rather than the error counter. This is the distinction that decides the whole investigation.
2. Group in-flight work by resolved host, not by destination id. The cap is keyed per destination row, so 900 rows sharing one hostname buy 3,600 concurrent slots against a single host, each held for 9.5 seconds. The bulkhead was never a bulkhead for that host, and grouping by the wrong dimension is why the dashboard looked healthy.
3. Do the arithmetic in both directions. Required concurrency is arrival rate times latency, so 1.5k/second at 200 ms needs about 300 in flight, which is entirely consumed by 3,600 slow slots; conversely whatever concurrency is left sustains rate equals concurrency divided by 9.5 seconds, which is the 300/second you are seeing. Matching both numbers is what promotes this from a plausible story to the mechanism.
4. Explain why the circuit breaker never helped. It opens on consecutive failures, and a 9.5-second response inside a 10-second timeout is a success. Slow is not failing, so an error-rate breaker cannot see this; you need a slow-call ratio, a deadline propagated from the caller's remaining budget, or a concurrency limiter.
5. Contain in order: park the offending host so the shared pool drains, add a per-resolved-host concurrency cap alongside the per-destination one, give slow hosts their own queue so they cannot occupy the general pool, derive the timeout from the delivery deadline rather than a round number, and check the retry policy is not tripling load on a host that is already slow. Use backoff with full jitter so retries do not resynchronise on recovery.
6. State the invariant you are restoring: one tenant's endpoints degrade only that tenant's deliveries. That is a property to load-test for, not to assume from a config value.

Follow-up

• The host recovers to 80 ms. How long does the queue take to drain, and what does the drain do to the recovered host?
• Where should the 10-second timeout number actually come from?
• If that tenant had one destination row instead of 900, would the cap of 4 have saved you? What would you measure to be sure?

Suggested practice checklist

Day one measures instead of guessing, under a fixed rubric, and the remaining hours are allocated in proportion to the gaps before any studying begins. The allocation is deliberately not renegotiated midweek, because the area that feels worst on day three is usually the one that is moving.

Day 1 — Diagnostic, scored before you study anything

• Sit a 110-minute diagnostic in four blocks: forty-five minutes on two coding problems, twenty-five on one design prompt taken to interface and data model, twenty of short-answer fundamentals, and twenty delivering two behavioural answers aloud.
• Score each block from 0 to 3 on a fixed rubric where 3 is correct and fluent, 2 is correct but slow or prompted, 1 is partially correct and 0 is stuck, grading the artifact rather than how the attempt felt.
• Allocate days two to five in proportion to 3 minus each block's score, write the allocation down, and commit to leaving it alone.

Deliverable: A scored rubric and a fixed hour allocation for the rest of the week.

Day 2 — Largest gap: find the boundary rather than the subject

• Split the weakest area into named sub-skills and rate each separately. For coding those are restating the problem, choosing the structure, stating the invariant, turning the invariant into loop bounds, handling empty and single-element input, and accounting for complexity out loud.
• Attempt three items positioned just above where the rating drops off, and for each write the first move you failed to make.
• Re-attempt one of them from blank four hours later with nothing open.

Deliverable: A sub-skill map with the two blocking sub-skills circled.

Day 3 — Drill the blocking sub-skill by repeating the shape

• Do eight short repetitions of the same shape rather than eight different problems, so what gets practised is the pattern and not the puzzle.
• State the rule you now hold in one sentence, then test it against a case built to break it, a sliding window over an array containing negative values, or a cache-aside read path whose invalidation message is dropped.
• Have someone else read your one-sentence rule and find the precondition you left out.

Deliverable: One rule statement with its preconditions attached and one counterexample that would have caught the incomplete version.

Day 4 — Second gap, plus maintenance on the strongest area

• Run the same sub-skill decomposition on the second-largest gap in half the time.
• Spend twenty-five timed minutes on the block you scored highest, choosing the hardest item you can still finish rather than a warm-up.
• Write whether each area fails you on recall, on setup, or on execution, and set the fix accordingly: repetition for recall, a written checklist for setup, timed work for execution.

Deliverable: A second sub-skill map plus a one-line failure diagnosis for each area.

Day 5 — The gap that is not a skill

• Record one technical and one behavioural answer, then count two things in the playback: seconds before your first clarifying question, and sentences you began without knowing where they would end.
• Practise saying that you do not know, followed by how you would find out, without letting it soften into a guess, and practise stating a complexity or an estimate before being asked for it.
• Redeliver one answer under a hard ninety-second cap, which forces structure ahead of detail.

Deliverable: Two recordings with a counted reduction in time-to-first-question.

Day 6 — Retest under day-one conditions

• Sit the same 110-minute structure with new prompts of comparable difficulty and score it on the identical rubric.
• For any block that did not move, change the method rather than adding hours: a block stuck at 1 usually means the practice was too varied, not too short.
• Write down which single block you would still lose the offer on.

Deliverable: A second scored rubric placed beside the first, with one named remaining risk.

Day 7 — Full loop under interview conditions

• Run a sixty-minute mock over the two blocks that moved least, with an interviewer briefed to interrupt and change direction mid-answer.
• Write the recovery script for going blank: restate the question, state your assumption, name the first thing you would check.
• Say every rule from the week aloud without reading it, and cut any you cannot state in a single sentence, since a rule you have to reconstruct mid-answer will not survive an interruption.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the recovery script and only the rules you could state from memory.

The bug you decided not to fix

Engineers over-index on what they repaired. A stronger answer covers something you knowingly left broken: the alert you tuned down, the data inconsistency you documented instead of chasing, the cleanup you deferred past two quarters. Give the reasoning and the condition that would have reopened it, so it reads as a decision and not as neglect.

How do you approach cross-departmental collaboration when requirements are unclear or conflicting?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
2. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
3. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

• What did you decide not to do, and why?
• How did you know your change caused the improvement?

How do you handle disagreements regarding technical architecture within your team?

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

1. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
2. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
3. State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.

Follow-up

• What would you do differently if you ran that again?
• How did you know your change caused the improvement?

Tell me about a time you had to advocate for a specific technical direction to non-technical stakeholders.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

1. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
2. Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.
3. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

• How did you know your change caused the improvement?
• What did you decide not to do, and why?

Describe a time you had to troubleshoot a critical system failure in a production environment.

Medium · behavioural and engineering judgement

Approach

1. Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
2. Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
3. Close with what you would do differently, concretely.

Follow-up

• What would you do differently if you ran that again?
• What did you decide not to do, and why?