FAQ

"Cloud-native" versus "cloud-ready" applications differ in design and cloud interaction: Cloud-Native: Specifically built for cloud environments. Uses microservices architecture. Highly scalable and resilient. Developed with continuous integration/delivery. Often employs containerization. Cloud-Ready: Traditional applications adapted for the cloud. Typically monolithic architecture. Less scalable and resilient compared to cloud-native. May not follow rapid development cycles. Containerization possible but less optimal. Cloud-native apps are designed for cloud efficiency, while cloud-ready apps are modified to function in the cloud but may not fully exploit its benefits.

“Modular Monolith" provides an alternative to microservices, suitable for projects that don't need microservices' scale but value simplicity and efficiency. It offers easier complexity management, improved performance without network latency, and streamlined development and deployment. The choice between Modular Monolith and microservices depends on project needs and team skills, balancing simplicity against scalability. Both architectures have their place, influenced by evolving industry trends.

A cloud application is tailored for cloud computing with distinct features: Accessibility: Anytime, anywhere internet access. Scalability: Flexible capacity and performance. Resource Management: Utilizes shared computing resources. Elasticity: Adapts resource allocation based on demand. Resilience: High availability and disaster recovery. Service-Oriented: Built with independently deployable microservices. Self-Service: User-managed operation. Pay-Per-Use: Cost-effective, usage-based pricing. Multi-Tenancy: Multiple users with secure, private access. API Integration: Seamless service integration. These qualities ensure cloud applications are flexible, reliable, and optimized for cloud environments.

Virtual machines (VMs) in cloud environments offer: • Isolation: Secure environments, with issues in one VM not affecting others. • Resource Optimization: Efficient use of server resources by hosting multiple VMs. • Flexibility: Compatibility with various operating systems and legacy applications. • Scalability: Easy scalability for load balancing. • User Control: Complete control over software environments. • Consistent Testing: Reliable environments for software testing. • Cost Savings: Reduced need for physical hardware. • Disaster Recovery: Quick backup and restoration capabilities. VMs enhance cloud computing with their flexibility, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.

Transitioning from a monolithic architecture to microservices, known as "strangling" the monolith, involves: • Identifying Service Boundaries within the monolith for segmentation. • Starting with a Small Segment as a pilot project. • Developing the Segment as an Independent Microservice. • Rerouting Traffic from the monolith to the new microservice. • Iteratively Testing and Expanding to other parts of the application. • Managing Data and Transactions across services. • Gradually Decommissioning the monolith. This process requires careful planning and simultaneous operation of both systems, leading to a more scalable and flexible architecture.

Microservices are small, independent services in a software application, each performing specific functions and communicating via defined protocols. This approach enhances scalability and flexibility but requires complex management. Distributed systems are networks of autonomous computers linked to share resources efficiently. They aim for easy access and scalability, yet face challenges like hardware failures and network latency. Microservices focus on application architecture, while distributed systems concern the overall interconnected infrastructure.

The cost of monolith versus microservices varies: • Initial Costs: Monoliths are generally cheaper to start, simpler in development and deployment. • Maintenance and Scaling: Monoliths may become costly to maintain and scale. Microservices, initially more expensive due to complex setup, can be more cost-effective long-term for scaling individual components. • Infrastructure and Team Expenses: Microservices require more robust infrastructure and skilled teams, increasing costs. • Monoliths suit smaller projects with lower initial costs, while microservices offer long-term efficiency but higher initial investment. The choice depends on the project's scale and long-term goals.

The ideal number of microservices per project depends on: • Domain Boundaries: Assign each microservice to a specific business function. • Team Size: Use the "Two Pizza Rule" where a service should be manageable by a small team. • Complexity: Ensure microservices are simple enough to handle but not overly numerous. • Scaling Needs: Separate services based on different scaling requirements. • Data and Security: Isolate data or functions for security or compliance. • Performance: Consider individual performance needs. Start with a manageable number and adjust as needed. The goal is to balance modularity and complexity, with no one-size-fits-all number.

Choosing between monolithic and microservice architectures depends on project size, team expertise, and business needs: • Monolithic Architecture: Suitable for smaller applications and teams with limited resources. It's simpler to develop, deploy, and test but can be hard to scale. • Microservice Architecture: Ideal for large, complex applications requiring scalability. It involves multiple teams and is more complex to test and debug but allows easier scaling of individual components. • For startups or small projects, monolithic is quicker and simpler. For larger applications or enterprises, microservices offer greater flexibility and resilience. The best choice varies based on the project's unique requirements.