Last Updated: January 6, 2026
In the previous chapters, we learned how to scale systems to handle load and how to keep them available when components fail. But there is a third pillar that completes the foundation: reliability.
A reliable system performs its intended function correctly and consistently, even in the face of faults. While availability asks "Is the system up?", reliability asks "Is the system doing what it should?"
The distinction matters. Consider a payment system that is always available but occasionally charges customers twice. Or a messaging app that delivers messages out of order.
These systems are available, but they are not reliable. And unreliable systems destroy user trust faster than unavailable ones.
Reliability is what builds user trust. A system that users can depend on to work correctly, every time, is a system worth building.
These terms are often confused but represent different qualities:
| Aspect | Availability | Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Is the system up? | Is the system correct? |
| Metric | Uptime percentage | Error rate, correctness |
| Failure | System unreachable | System returns wrong results |
| Example | Server crashes, returns 503 | Server returns incorrect data |
A system can be positioned anywhere on the availability-reliability matrix:
| Combination | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| High Availability + High Reliability | Always up AND always correct. The goal for critical systems. | Well-designed payment system |
| High Availability + Low Reliability | Always up BUT sometimes wrong. Dangerous because users trust it. | Cache serving stale data indefinitely |
| Low Availability + High Reliability | Sometimes down BUT always correct when up. Acceptable for some use cases. | Nightly batch processing system |
| Low Availability + Low Reliability | Often down AND often wrong. The worst case. | Broken legacy system |
The second quadrant, high availability with low reliability, is particularly dangerous. Users trust systems that are always responsive. When that trust is misplaced, the consequences can be severe.
Reliability is typically measured by four key metrics. Understanding these helps you set targets and measure progress.
How long the system operates correctly between failures.
MTBF = Total Operating Time / Number of Failures
Higher MTBF means more reliable. A system with 2,000 hour MTBF fails on average once every 83 days.
How long it takes to restore the system after a failure.
MTTR = Total Downtime / Number of Failures
Lower MTTR means faster recovery. Even unreliable systems can achieve high availability if they recover quickly enough.
Percentage of requests that result in errors.
Error Rate = Failed Requests / Total Requests × 100%
Percentage of responses that contain correct data.
Correctness = Correct Responses / Total Responses × 100%
This is the often-overlooked metric. A system can have 99.99% availability and 0.01% error rate, but if 1% of successful responses contain wrong data, you have a reliability problem. Users received a response, it just was not the right one.
To build reliable systems, engineers typically focus on several core principles:
Redundancy means having backup components ready to take over if one part fails. This could involve multiple servers, duplicate network paths, or backup databases.
Failover is the process by which a system automatically switches to a redundant or standby component when a failure is detected. This ensures continuous operation without noticeable disruption to users.
Load balancing distributes incoming traffic across multiple servers. This not only improves performance but also prevents any single server from becoming a single point of failure.
A reliable system is constantly monitored. Tools and dashboards track system health and performance, while alerting mechanisms notify engineers of issues before they escalate into major problems.
Even when parts of the system fail, a well-designed system can still provide core functionality rather than going completely offline. This concept is known as graceful degradation.
Now that we understand the principles, let’s look at some practical techniques to implement reliability in your systems.
Set up multiple instances of critical components.
For example, if you have a web server handling user requests, deploy several servers behind a load balancer:
If one server fails, the load balancer automatically routes traffic to the remaining servers.
Ensure your data is not stored in a single location. Use data replication strategies across multiple databases or data centers.
This way, if one database fails, the system can still access a copy from another location.
Implement health checks that continuously monitor system components. When a component fails, automated systems can restart or replace it.
Tools like Kubernetes use health checks to manage containerized applications effectively.
In a microservices architecture, one service failing can cascade failures throughout the system. Circuit breakers detect when a service is failing and temporarily cut off requests to prevent overload, allowing the system to recover gracefully.
Caching reduces the load on your servers by temporarily storing frequently accessed data. Even if your primary data source is slow or temporarily unavailable, a cached copy can serve the request, improving reliability.