We have 100s of queues processing millions of jobs in sidekiq queues at any given time.

These are data and compute heavy workloads that take anywhere from minutes to hours for a request to be completed, but the UI takes this into account.

Users submit a request and then continue onto whatever is the next thing they intend to do and then they can subscribe to various async notification channels.

It’s not the right choice for everything, but it’s the right choice for something’s.

These are good points, in answer to them:

1. Yes this is true but Rails now comes with nice support for async UI built to push updates to the browser via Hotwire and Turbo.

You’d need something like that anyway anytime you’re calling an external service you don’t control.

2. Again this is also a good point but even running every request synchronously you still need good error logging because you don’t want to share details of an error with your frontend.

With background jobs you definitely need to be on top of monitoring and retry logic. I also think you need to be very careful about idempotency amd retry logic.

I see that as the engineering trade offs for that pattern. There’s very little in the way of silver bullets in engineering; different solutions just come with different trade offs.

Error handling was a huge issue, along with other weird distributed system bugs. Backed up queues, job shedding, thundering herds, you name it. When you have jobs on queues kicking off new jobs on different queues, tracing issues is just miserable. Sure, it's not a problem of ruby per se, but engineers would basically just throw their hands up and say "ruby can't handle this" and sidekiq became the One True Way™.