Is this a video course?

No. This is an interactive, slide-based learning platform. Each lesson has rich text, animated diagrams, live code editors, and quizzes. You learn by reading, interacting, and doing, not by watching videos passively.

How long do I have access?

Forever. Both pricing tiers are one-time payments with lifetime access. This includes all current 766 lessons and any future content we add.

What level of experience do I need?

None. We start from absolute basics like 'What is latency?' and build up to distributed consensus protocols. The Foundation level assumes zero prior knowledge of system design.

How much does the system design course cost?

7.99 US dollars for lifetime access globally, or 499 Indian rupees for lifetime access in India. One-time payment, no subscription, no hidden fees. 11 lessons are free with no signup required.

What technologies are covered?

Everything from DNS and load balancers to Kubernetes, Kafka, distributed databases, consensus protocols, stream processing, security architecture, and observability. We cover principles and real-world implementations used at Netflix, Google, Amazon, Uber, Stripe, and more.

Is this useful for system design interview preparation?

Yes. The lessons are structured around the exact topics asked in system design interviews at FAANG and top-tier companies. Interactive diagrams help you practice whiteboard-style explanations. Covers everything from URL shortener design to distributed payment systems.

How is this different from ByteByteGo or Educative?

766 interactive lessons (4x more than most competitors), 16 different diagram types that build step by step, real production examples from Netflix, Google, Amazon, Uber, and Stripe, and lifetime access for a one-time payment of $7.99 instead of annual subscriptions costing 100 to 200 dollars per year.

Why does error analysis insist on open coding (freeform notes with no categories) before axial coding (grouping into categories)?

If you start with predefined categories, you can only find the failures you already imagined, so the real ones stay invisible, Open coding forces you to describe what each trace actually shows before your assumptions bucket it. Starting with categories limits you to the failure list you walked in with, which is exactly the blind spot error analysis exists to remove. The categories should emerge from the notes, bottom up, in the axial pass.

What is theoretical saturation, and why does it matter here?

The point where reading more traces stops producing new failure categories, which is the principled signal that you can stop reading, Saturation is when a long run of new traces reveals nothing you have not already named. It gives you a real stopping rule based on the categories stabilizing, rather than stopping because you got bored or ran out of time. It usually arrives sooner than people expect for a focused failure area.

Why label outputs binary pass or fail per facet instead of rating them 1 to 5?

Humans disagree heavily on the middle of a 1 to 5 scale, so those scores are mostly noise, while a sharp yes-or-no question gets far more consistent agreement, The middle of a Likert scale soaks up most of the disagreement and carries little signal, so the average cannot be trusted to gate anything. A concrete pass-or-fail question about one failure mode has a concrete answer, so graders agree far more. DoorDash found graders disagreeing heavily on the middle of a multi-point relevance scale and moved to binary facet checks for this reason.

A team spends its first three weeks building an eval dashboard with an LLM judge scoring helpfulness and correctness, before anyone has read the raw traces. What is the core mistake?

They built the eval stack top-down, so their metrics measure failures they guessed at rather than the failures error analysis would have found, Metrics and dashboards sit on top of a named failure taxonomy, which sits on top of reading real traces. Building the dashboard first means the metrics rest on intuition about what fails, so they measure the wrong things precisely. The fix is to read failures first, let them define the taxonomy, then build metrics for the common, named failure modes.

Error Analysis: Reading Failures Before Building Metrics

Name: System Design Masterclass
Availability: InStock

in Evals

This lesson is part of the ML Platform Engineering course. Unlock the full course, a separate one-time payment, for lifetime access.

One-time payment. Lifetime access. No subscription.

Global

$20/lifetime

One-time payment via PayPal

Get Lifetime Access

5 Foundation lessons free, try before you buy

India Special

India

₹999/lifetime

One-time via UPI, cards, or net banking

Get Lifetime Access

5 Foundation lessons free, try before you buy

“The interactive diagrams alone are worth way more than the price.”

Anish K., Senior Engineer at a Bengaluru startup

Every ML Platform lesson, Foundation to Advanced

Real architecture diagrams with real tool logos

MLOps, LLMOps, and data engineering in depth

Quizzes with instant feedback

Built and reviewed by senior engineers

Lifetime access, all future content included

The first 5 Foundation lessons of this course are free, no payment needed. Try them now