3 Factors Influencing Technical Decisions in Backend Architecture
Delving into the complex world of backend architecture, this article brings to light the pivotal 3 factors that influence technical decisions. Backed by the knowledge of seasoned industry professionals, it explores scalable solutions, long-term flexibility, and the essential monitoring of system health. Gain a clear understanding of how expert-driven choices can shape the backbone of any tech venture.
- Choose Microservices for Scalability and Expertise
- Opt for Microservices for Long-Term Flexibility
- Monitor Microservices Health for Reliability
Choose Microservices for Scalability and Expertise
We were building a scalable e-commerce platform and hit a crossroads. Should we go with a monolithic architecture or dive into microservices? Both had their pros, and the stakes were high.
Here's what we had to weigh:
- Traffic load: Could the architecture handle peak user demand?
- Team expertise: Were the skills already in-house, or would we need to invest heavily in upskilling?
- Speed of deployment: How fast could we ship new features without breaking everything else?
After weighing the options, we went with microservices. Why? Scalability was a must, and our team already had experience with containerization tools like Docker, making deployment and maintenance a breeze.
The result? A system that handles user demand effortlessly and lets us ship features faster without breaking anything. So, the takeaway lesson is that the right architecture isn't about trends; it's about what works for your team and your goals.
Opt for Microservices for Long-Term Flexibility
As the founder of Software House, I recall a time when we had to decide between using a monolithic architecture or a microservices approach for a client's back-end system. The decision was complex, as both options had their pros and cons, and the wrong choice could affect scalability and long-term maintenance.
The key factors influencing our decision were scalability, development speed, and team expertise. Given that the project involved rapid feature development and required scalability, we chose the microservices architecture, allowing us to scale individual components without disrupting the entire system. It was a tough call, but the long-term flexibility microservices offered outweighed the initial complexity. This decision allowed us to optimize performance and adapt quickly to future growth.
Monitor Microservices Health for Reliability
For stakingcrypro.io, I had to decide whether to adopt a microservices architecture with extensive use of external services.
While this approach offers flexibility and scalability, it also introduces significant complexity, particularly around ensuring the reliability of multiple interconnected components.
The critical factor here is the ability to monitor the health and performance of all services effectively because if you have a service like "pusher" which helps having more interactivity in the page but it stops working, it won't be obvious that it does not work anymore.
So monitor the health of your microservices!
